Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: I can announce the arrangements for the election of the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Nominations will close at noon on Tuesday 16 May. Nomination forms will be available from the Vote Office, Table Office and Public Bill Office. Following the House’s decision of 16 January 2020, only Members from the Conservative party may be candidates in this election. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 17 May between 11 am and 2.30 pm in the Aye Lobby. A briefing note with more information will be made available from the Vote Office.
Before we come to questions, I want to make it clear that while I understand that legal proceedings relating to the industrial action called by the Royal College of Nursing are active, I am prepared to allow discussion of the matter, given its national importance.

Oral
Answers

Health and Social Care

The Secretary of State was asked—

Gender Dysphoria: Waiting Times

Ben Bradshaw: If he will make an estimate of the average waiting time for treatment for gender dysphoria; and if he will make a statement.

Maria Caulfield: NHS England does not routinely collect or publish data on waiting times for treatment for gender dysphoria, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that as of February this year 28,290 adults were waiting for a first appointment in England.

Ben Bradshaw: Four years on average for an initial appointment, and seven years at the south-west clinic in Exeter. With healthcare for trans people in effect non-existent, the Government planning to remove trans human rights from the Equality Act 2010, breaking their promise to ban conversion therapy and to reform the gender recognition process, and now threatening to force schools to out trans students to their parents, can the Minister see why this tiny and particularly vulnerable minority feels under attack by the Government, and that some who can afford to are even leaving the country for a less hostile environment?

Maria Caulfield: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are putting an additional £7.9 million into four new pilot gender identity clinics, because we want services to improve and waiting times to come down. The four new pilot services are now operating in Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Merseyside, East of England and London, and a new clinic will be opening in Sussex later this year. The four pilot studies have already removed 3,400 patients from the waiting list and I am hoping the fifth clinic will go further.

Health Inequalities

Rob Butler: What steps his Department is taking to reduce health inequalities in deprived areas.

Gavin Newlands: Whether he has made a recent assessment of the potential relationship between poverty and life expectancy.

Steve Barclay: The Government are committed to our levelling-up mission to narrow the gap in healthy life expectancy by 2030. That is why, in October, we committed an additional £50 million to 13 local authorities to tackle inequalities and why we are also setting out our plans through the major conditions strategy.

Rob Butler: Even in areas that people consider to be affluent, such as Buckinghamshire, health inequalities can be a serious concern. Figures from Opportunity Bucks show there is an eight-year difference in life expectancy between residents of the Aylesbury North West ward and the Ridgeway East ward, both of which are in my constituency, yet the funding for those areas is essentially the same. Will my right hon. Friend explain the steps he is taking to ensure that deprived communities, wherever they are in the country, get the additional help and support—not necessarily purely financial—that they need to address their needs?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of targeting health inequalities. Let me give the House a practical example. For lung cancer, patients are 20 times more likely to survive five years if we catch it early rather than late. Before the pandemic, those in the most deprived communities had the worst diagnosis. However, as a result of the targeted action we took with lung cancer check vans, they now have the best early diagnosis, which obviously has a big read-across for the five-year survival rate.

Gavin Newlands: The UK ranks 29th in global life expectancy. Professor Martin McKee from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine notes that one reason why the overall increase in life expectancy has been so sluggish in the UK is that it has fallen for poorer groups. The Scottish Government are doing everything they can within devolved competencies to fight poverty—the Scottish child payment and so on—but Westminster controls 85% of social security. What representations has the Secretary of State made to Cabinet colleagues and the Department for Work and Pensions about the damaging effects of their policies on life expectancy?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. He can see the success of the representations I made to Cabinet colleagues from the Chancellor’s Budget statement, when he announced additional funding to tackle, in particular, health impediments to access to the labour market. He will also have seen the recent announcement of targeted action on, for example, smoking cessation, which is a particular driver of health inequalities. That includes our financial incentive scheme to pregnant mums, which obviously has a big impact on both their health and the health of their baby.

Derek Thomas: It is becoming clear that in Cornwall the only way to get dental care is to go to a private dentist. In a deprived area, of which there are many across Cornwall, that is just not an option for people on low incomes. What can the Secretary of State do to increase the accessibility of NHS dentistry?

Steve Barclay: This issue concerns Members across the House. We have already started to reform the dental contract. We have introduced the £23 minimum value for units of dental activity and created more UDA bands, reflecting the fair cost. We are seeing more patients nationally—to March, up nearly a fifth on the year. But I recognise that there is more to do, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), is undertaking that work as we speak.

Jon Trickett: Women in my constituency have a healthy life expectancy of only 56 years. Could the Minister explain why the difference between West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire—where the Prime Minister has his constituency—is 10 years? Why should women have to put up with that kind of experience? What is his explanation of how that has happened?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman is right that we should narrow the health inequalities gap, and we are committed to doing that. That is why in the women’s health strategy, which I set out in the summer, we committed to having women’s health hubs as one-stop shops to tackle some of the gender inequality. It is also why, whether on obesity, smoking or lung cancer, we are targeting our screening and public health interventions to close the gap, which he is quite right to highlight.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Andrew Gwynne: The Secretary of State is absolutely right: we should be narrowing the health inequalities in this country. It is just a shame that, on his watch, we are not. A baby born in Blackpool today will live eight years less than a baby born in Kensington. Under this Tory Government, health inequalities have widened in many parts of the country. They have scrapped their health disparities strategy and cut the number of health visitors by a third, and ordinary families are paying the price. Why does the Secretary of State not get a grip, adopt Labour’s plan to scrap the non-dom tax status and train 5,000 new health visitors, so that every child has a healthy start to life?

Steve Barclay: There is consensus in the House on our desire to close the health inequality gap—everyone agrees that is a key aim. The hon. Gentleman seems to have written the question before hearing my answer. I just gave a practical example of how we have transformed the early detection of lung cancer. He raised the public health grant, and I am happy to update the House that we are delivering 2.8% funding growth in the public health grant to help local authorities.
It is also about areas such as obesity and access to employment, which can have a big impact on mental health. The Chancellor announced specific funding—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister chunters away about children; I am conscious that one does not want too long an answer, but let me give the example of mental health. In the Budget we announced extra funding for a whole load of digital apps—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister keeps chuntering about children. Let me talk about the roll-out of our mental health support in schools, which is targeted at getting that early mental health intervention to school children.

Vaping: Young People

Bob Blackman: What steps he is taking to tackle vaping by young people.

Neil O'Brien: I recently announced new measures to tackle youth vaping, including an extra £3 million for a new enforcement squad to tackle underage sales and illicit vapes. We also launched a call for evidence to identify opportunities to reduce youth vaping, which covers everything from the appearance, marketing and price to the environmental impact of vapes.

Bob Blackman: We would all encourage people to vape instead of smoke, but we do not know the long-term health impact of vaping at all. Reports suggest that one in seven young people are taking up vaping directly and therefore becoming addicted to nicotine, the most addictive drug known to humankind. What measures will my hon. Friend take to make sure that young people understand the risks of vaping?

Neil O'Brien: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for vaping. He is right; as well as the measures I mentioned, we have updated the guidance on Talk to FRANK, to illustrate for young people the dangers of consuming lots of nicotine.

Mary Foy: In 2021, the Government rejected my amendment to the Health and Care Bill to tackle smoking and youth vaping. England is now set to miss the Smokefree 2030 target by at least seven years, and countless children are now addicted to vapes. I welcome the U-turn, but what steps has the Minister taken to make up that lost time?

Neil O'Brien: We are taking action across the board on smoking. I think we are in agreement on what has to be done. That is why we recently announced that we are giving vaping kits to a million smokers to help them swap to stop. We are also bringing in new health incentives for all pregnant women so that we can help them  stop—that is based on good local evidence. We are taking preventative action, and I think the hon. Lady and I both want the same thing.

Adult Social Care: Funding

Rebecca Long-Bailey: What assessment his Department has made of the impact of funding allocations for adult social care on charitable and not-for-profit providers.

Helen Whately: This Government back social care, which is why we are giving social care a record funding boost of up to £7.5 billion over the next two years. That extra funding will help local authorities increase the rates they pay to care providers, helping those providers in turn meet extra costs and increase staff pay.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Frontline charities, such as United Response and Age UK, have responded that the Government’s plan falls far short of what is needed, including holding back the promised £250 million in social care workforce funding. Can the Minister promise that will be revisited with urgency, given that one in five over-80s have some unmet care needs and we are facing the highest social care vacancy rates on record?

Helen Whately: I can assure the hon. Member that not a penny of funding is being cut from adult social care. We are driving forward our reforms to the adult social care system, which have the workforce at their heart. We are introducing a new career path for the social care workforce, new care qualifications and new training, boosting the adult social care workforce and making sure people in that workforce get the recognition and rewards they deserve.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Liz Kendall: The Minister says this Government back social care—I would love to see what the reality would be if they were against it. We already know that the Conservatives have completely failed to deliver their flagship policy of a cap on care costs, and over Easter we learned that they have broken the rest of their promises on social care too. The £500 million promised for the care workforce has been cut in half; the £300 million promised for housing in care has been slashed by two thirds; and as for the £600 million of other promises, your guess is as good as mine, Mr Speaker. They have not had the courage to announce this to Parliament or the nous to grasp that if people are not kept in their own homes, they end up stuck in hospital, with all the knock-on consequences for NHS waiting times and emergency care. Will the Minister tell us where all that money has gone? Why on earth should older and disabled people and their families ever believe the Conservatives on social care again?

Helen Whately: Out of that, I can pick one thing we agree on: the importance of helping people to live independently at home for longer and social care as a part of that. I say to the hon. Lady, as I said a moment ago, that we have not cut a penny of funding from our commitments to adult social care, both on adult social reform and on the historic £7.5 billion of adult social  care funding announced in the autumn statement. We are forging ahead with our reforms, with the workforce at their heart, because the workforce is crucial, hand in hand with the digitisation of social care, improving data, joining up health and social care, and supporting unpaid carers.

Smoking Cessation

Mark Eastwood: What steps his Department is taking to encourage people to stop smoking.

Neil O'Brien: We have the lowest smoking rate on record in England, down from 21% in 2010 to 13% now, partly because we have introduced minimum excise tax on cheap cigarettes and double duty on cigarettes, but we know we have to go further. That is why we recently announced significant new funding to help a million smokers quit, through swap to stop, and introduced a new financial incentive for pregnant women. We are also consulting on new pack inserts, similar to those in Canada.

Mark Eastwood: As someone who was able to quit smoking using nicotine patches, following the advice at last year’s Emley show, I welcome the measures announced by the Minister earlier this month to help us achieve our Smokefree 2030 target. Does the Minister agree that, in order to help even more people quit, we should continue to pursue harm reduction strategies such as swap to stop? That will ensure that we maintain our position as a world leader in public health.

Neil O'Brien: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on quitting. The swap to stop scheme that we are rolling out nationally, which is the first of its kind in the world, is based on strong local evidence. We know it works from local pilots, which is why we are rolling it out at scale.

Dan Jarvis: Smoking remains the biggest preventable cause of cancer and we know that smoking cessation services are vital to kicking the habit, but smokers in England face a postcode lottery when trying to access them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that everybody who needs those services is able to access them?

Neil O'Brien: Absolutely. In total, public health grants will go up by 5% in real terms over the next two years. We want to reduce the postcode variation, because these are important services. I am keen to speak to anyone who wants to work with us at a local level.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martyn Day: Welcome as the UK Government’s recent announcement is to help more people in England to quit smoking, the Khan review’s key recommendation to increase investment in smokefree policies, making the polluter pay by raising tobacco duty, was not mentioned. Product duty, as we all know, is a wholly reserved matter, so what representations have been made with Cabinet colleagues about implementing that recommendation to improve public health outcomes across all four of our nations?

Neil O'Brien: I recently had a very productive meeting with my Scottish Government counterpart. As I mentioned, we have already doubled the duty on cigarettes since 2010 and have brought in a minimum tax for the cheaper cigarettes. Of course, tax is a matter for the Treasury, but we will always be interested in things that can drive down smoking.

Maternity Care: South-west

Wera Hobhouse: What steps his Department is taking to improve access to maternity care in the south-west.

Maria Caulfield: Accessibility and choice remain high in the south-west. All but one trust in the region have a minimum of three birth options.

Wera Hobhouse: In my local council area, birthing units were closed in 2020. My constituents were promised a new midwife-led unit at the Royal United Hospital in Bath, but three years on it is still not up and running. The Minister will say that it is a funding decision for the local area, but it is an NHS England funding decision and the Government are the paymaster, so when will Bath get its midwifery unit at the RUH?

Maria Caulfield: I am very happy to contact the hon. Lady’s local commissioners to find out the answer for her. However, I highlight the fact that the £7.6 million health and wellbeing fund is funding 19 projects across England to reduce health disparities in new mothers and babies. Two of those projects are in the south-west: the Trelya in Cornwall, a community-centred whole-family provision that takes a holistic approach to working with children and their families; and the Splitz Support Service in Wiltshire, which aims to improve community knowledge, access to and engagement with pre-conception and perinatal care. We are investing in the hon. Lady’s region, but if she has a local funding issue I am very happy to speak to her local commissioning group on her behalf.

James Gray: I am very glad that the maternity unit at the Royal United Hospital in Bath is rated as outstanding—we actually have very good choices in our local area. Does the Minister agree that choice is an important thing in maternity services? I am very glad that we have a first-class birthing centre in Chippenham and another in Malmesbury. One of the most important things is allowing women the choice to have the birth at home. That requires first-class midwifery support thereafter, which we also have in our area.

Maria Caulfield: Absolutely; choice is important. Only last month we published the single delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services, which I am sure Members across the House will already have read. It puts women at the heart of decision making and learns from the Ockenden and East Kent inquiries, to ensure that women have better choice when giving birth.

Urgent and Emergency Care

Andrew Lewer: What progress his Department has made on the delivery plan for recovering urgent and emergency care services.

James Sunderland: What progress his Department has made on the delivery plan for recovering urgent and emergency care services.

Steve Barclay: The urgent and emergency care recovery plan sets out how we will invest more than £1 billion in increasing capacity, including 800 new ambulances, an additional 5,000 core beds and a further 3,000 virtual wards, to provide more than 10,000 out-of-hospital care settings.

Andrew Lewer: A key component of delivering better urgent care services will be expanding the network of urgent treatment centres across the country. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that a UTC in the major population centre of Northampton will be a high priority for the Department?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of UTCs. Nationally, they are above the national standard: 95.5% of patients are seen within four hours. He is a highly effective campaigner on health issues—he helped to secure the £2.8 million of investment for a new paediatric emergency department in his local area—and I know that he will be making a similar case to his local commissioners.

James Sunderland: Ultimately, the best way to improve urgent and emergency care services is through new build, purpose-built hospitals. Can the Secretary of State confirm where we are with the Royal Berkshire Hospital and Frimley Park?

Steve Barclay: As the House knows, I am extremely committed to modern methods of construction and modular building capacity. We are using that as a central component of our new 40 hospitals programme. My hon. Friend will know that the RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—hospitals are very much part of that discussion, not just at Frimley but at King’s Lynn, at Hinchingbrooke and in a whole range of other settings. He will also know that we are in a purdah period, so we are constrained in what we can say, but we will have more to say on this very shortly.

Clive Efford: We have had 13 years of Conservative government. There are record numbers of patients on waiting lists, record numbers of vacancies in the NHS, and a crisis of vacancies in social care. As for emergency care, the Government cannot meet their 18-minute target for category 2 ambulance responses. If the Conservatives were really concerned about the NHS, would we not be in a better position than this after 13 years?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman talks of 13 years. People are nearly twice as likely to be waiting for treatment in the Labour-run Welsh NHS as people seeking treatment in England, and, indeed, waits are longer in Wales: we have virtually eliminated two-year waits in England, whereas more than 41,000 people in Labour-run Wales are waiting more than two years.

Sarah Champion: I recently conducted a major surgery—[Laughter]—I mean a major survey of Rotherham residents to learn about their experiences of the NHS. A staggering 73% of respondents who had  called ambulances needing a category 1 response had waited longer than the seven-minute target time. Given that minutes can mean the difference between life and death, what are the Government doing to ensure that my constituents receive the life-saving support that they need, when they need it?

Steve Barclay: I know we have clinicians in the House who do second jobs, but I did not know that the hon. Lady had expanded that definition to such an extent! She is right to highlight, through her survey, the importance of timely care. There is currently a range of initiatives, such as the development of the NHS app, the review of the 111 service, and the examination of innovations such as artificial intelligence. We are looking into how we can manage demand in the case of, in particular, frail elderly people by noting changes in behaviour patterns, which will allow us to ensure that, for example, someone who has a fall at home receives care much earlier before arriving in the accident and emergency department, because we know that once frail elderly people have been admitted they will often be in hospital for about 14 days. The hon. Lady has raised an extremely important issue through her survey, and one on which we are focusing in our urgent and emergency recovery plan.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Steve Brine: That urgent and emergency care plan, which was announced in January, was received with acclaim by me and, indeed, with wide acclaim. It was described as a two-year plan to stabilise services by, for instance, returning to the A&E target that the Secretary of State has mentioned. What assessment has he made of the impact of the ongoing industrial dispute among the Agenda for Change cohort, and, of course, the junior doctors, on the delivery of the plan?

Steve Barclay: As a result of the fantastic work of Sir Jim Mackey and Professor Tim Briggs through the Getting It Right First Time programme, we have been making significant progress in respect of elective procedures. When it comes to urgent and emergency care, there are lessons coming out of the various strikes which we are keen to adopt, but this situation is also clearly having an impact on patients and the number of cancellations. As my hon. Friend well knows, we publish the figures.
We have been working constructively with the NHS Staff Council. Unison voted by a majority of 74% to support the deal, there will be further votes this week from other key trade unions, and there will be a decision from the staff council on 2 May. Obviously, that will be extremely important when it comes to addressing the concern highlighted by my hon. Friend.

Derek Twigg: According to figures that I obtained recently from the House of Commons Library, in January 2023 54.4% of patients who were treated after an urgent referral received their first treatment within 62 days of that referral. The target is 85%. The figure for performance in January 2020, before covid, was 73.6%. Why has there been such a deterioration?

Steve Barclay: To be honest, I think the position is mixed. In certain areas we have seen significant improvements in performance: the faster diagnosis standard, for example, was hit for the first time this month.  Purdah prevents me from going into the details of the 78-week wait, but I expect to be able to update the House very soon on the progress that has been made. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are still challenges as a consequence of the pandemic, but we are seeing much more progress than the NHS in Wales, and it is also worth reminding the House that, through Barnett consequentials, the Welsh NHS receives more funding that the NHS in England.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Rosena Allin-Khan: This may surprise you, Mr Speaker, but I have found evidence that the Health Secretary has got something right. He recently hailed the power of local news outlets, and he was spot on. I have here a story from his local paper, exposing the shocking length of waits in A&E for those in a mental health crisis: 5.4 million hours across England in just one year. He is very welcome to have a look if he would like to. Given his admiration for local journalism, does he feel embarrassed for his Government’s failings and will he apologise to all the people across the country who are stuck waiting in A&E?

Steve Barclay: There are two separate issues there: what we are doing for mental health in-patients and the point we just touched on about A&E. On mental health, it is good of the hon. Lady to give me the opportunity to remind the House of the significant increase in funding we are making to mental health. In the long-term plan, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), made a major strategic choice to invest more in mental health—an extra £2.3 billion per year. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the need for more capacity for mental health in-patients—[Interruption.] She asked a question on what we are doing on mental health. I am able to tell her that we are spending far more and investing far more in it, but it seems that she does not want to hear that answer.

Health Inequalities

Caroline Dinenage: What steps his Department is taking to tackle health inequalities experienced by people with learning disabilities and autistic people.

Maria Caulfield: Annual health checks for people with a learning disability are important in addressing the causes of avoidable deaths and avoidable morbidity and in improving health.

Caroline Dinenage: It is eight years since the Transforming Care programme started, with a target of halving the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people in in-patient mental health settings by 2024, yet according to the Challenging Behaviour Foundation, the number of children in those settings has nearly doubled since then, the average length of stay is 5.4 years and, 12 years on from the Winterbourne View scandal, reports of appalling standards of care are still too frequent. Does the Minister agree that people with learning disabilities and autistic people deserve so much better?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this place. Our priority is always to ensure that children and adults with a learning disability and autistic people receive high-quality care. More than 2,000 people—children and adults—are still waiting to be discharged from in-patient facilities but that is a reduction of 30% and we are making progress. I am meeting individual integrated care boards—[Interruption.] Perhaps the shadow Minister would like to listen to this. I am meeting individual ICBs to go through their patients who are waiting to be discharged to see what more support we can give to make that happen as quickly as possible.

Richard Thomson: Last year the Scottish Government announced £2 million-worth of funding and help for health boards to deliver health checks for all people with learning disabilities so that any health issues could be identified and treated as quickly as possible. What plans do the UK Government have to do similar across England?

Maria Caulfield: We also ensure that those eligible for safe and wellbeing reviews get one. Last year about 87% of those who were eligible did so.

NHS Dental Services

Rachael Maskell: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of NHS dental services.

Christine Jardine: What progress his Department has made on improving access to NHS dentist appointments.

Neil O'Brien: There are 6% more dentists doing NHS work than in 2010, and activity levels are going up. In March the number of patients seen over the past year was up by nearly a fifth on the year before. The initials reforms we have made to make NHS work more attractive are having positive effects but there is much more to do and we will be publishing a plan to improve access to dentistry.

Rachael Maskell: In York alone, practices are closing, turning private and handing back contracts. Units of dental activity are down 126,130 compared with four years ago and it can take five years to see a dentist. This is an unacceptable crisis after 13 years of complete failure. Will the Minister enable integrated care boards to have full flexibility to establish an under-18s NHS dental service in schools, along with a full elderly service and one for the most disadvantaged?

Neil O'Brien: We will look at all those things. We have introduced additional flexibilities, as the hon. Lady knows, and we are allowing dentists to do more to deliver 110% of their UDAs and bringing in minimum UDA values, but we are also interested in prevention and I would be happy to look particularly at what we can do for younger people.

Christine Jardine: Tooth care, like any other form of healthcare, should be universally accessible, but we know that we are facing a crisis across the UK, with one in five adults who could not get an appointment in the past 12 months carrying out dental work on themselves, or getting someone else to do it, which is quite horrifying.  The problem is not confined to one part of the UK. In Scotland, 80% of dentists are no longer accepting new adult or child patients. We have a crisis across the UK, so will the Minister commit to introducing a national programme and to speaking to the Scottish and Welsh Governments to address the shortage of NHS dentists for all of us?

Neil O'Brien: I am happy to work with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We are, as I said, driving up levels of delivery, and we will be publishing a plan to take that further.

Kevin Foster: Like other colleagues, I have been approached by constituents who are struggling to find an NHS dentist because their previous dentist has either retired or converted to private practice. When the Minister presents his new dental plan, will it include a target to ensure registrations are available, as well as to increase the number of appointments?

Neil O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right, and I am particularly seized of the issue of access for new patients.

Simon Fell: My constituents in Dalton-in-Furness were dismayed to find out that their dentist has closed. This follows the closure of Bupa in Barrow and in Millom, and Avondale in Grange-over-Sands has handed back its NHS contracts. What was a bad situation has got very bad indeed. I am meeting the ICB next week to talk about what it might be able to do, but will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss what levers he can pull to improve dental access in Barrow and Furness?

Neil O'Brien: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend, and we have already talked to some extent. The minimum UDA value that we introduced particularly helps rural and coastal areas of the kind he represents, and I am happy to talk further, and to go further, on all these things.

Philippa Whitford: As in the NHS, workforce is the biggest single issue. The Nuffield Trust has identified that, post-Brexit, dentists are among the key staff we are losing. On top of that, while Scotland and Wales have childhood dental health programmes, England does not. When will England have a national childhood dental health programme, and when will the contract in England be reformed to reward preventive work, rather than just dealing with emergencies?

Neil O'Brien: We passed legislation last month to make it easier for international dentists to come to the UK by reforming the General Dental Council to speed up the flow from abroad. The hon. Lady mentions an additional service that is available in Scotland. Of course, Scotland has 25% more funding per head than the rest of the UK, which is just one benefit of being in the UK, and it is one reason why people in Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

Jack Brereton: The lack of NHS dentists is a major concern in north Staffordshire. Does the Minister agree that we should set up a dental school at Keele University, which already has one of the best medical schools in the country?

Neil O'Brien: We are looking at the dentist, hygienist and therapist workforces as part of the long-term NHS workforce plan. I can reveal that this is not the first time my hon. Friend has lobbied me on this idea, and I am sure he will continue to do so.

NHS Appointments

Jamie Stone: What progress his Department has made on improving access to NHS appointments.

Will Quince: We are investing at least £1.5 billion to create an additional 50 million GP appointments by 2024. To improve access to hospital appointments we are giving patients choice about their care and offering alternative providers, with shorter waiting times, to long-waiters. We are also investing £2.3 billion in community diagnostic services, which will improve access to tests, checks and scans. One hundred community diagnostic centres are already open, and they have delivered more than 3.6 million additional tests.

Jamie Stone: If we have a power cut in north Scotland, people get a text message from SSE saying that engineers are coming out and that they will have power by, say, 3 o’clock. Missed NHS appointments are a waste of resources. I understand that some dental practices in England offer some sort of reminder service, but would it not be helpful if a leaf could be taken out of SSE’s book so that everyone with an NHS appointment receives a text to remind them, “You have a test at 10 o’clock tomorrow,” or possibly, “There is a big queue and there are delays, so your appointment has been changed to 4 o’clock”?

Will Quince: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. Better communication with patients was one of the five principles at the heart of our elective recovery plan, which was published in February. We recommend that all providers use appointment reminders, often through text messages. As he suggests, in some cases that has been shown to reduce “did not attends” by up to 80%. Providers have told us that they see better results when communication is two-way, for example, where patients can reply to cancel their own appointments. Alongside that, we also launched the My Planned Care website, so that patients can access information ahead of their planned appointment, and of course we are doing a lot more with the NHS app. This is just one of the ways in which we are putting patients in control of their own care.

Paul Bristow: I am the father to two beautiful daughters, Becky and Eris, one of whom was conceived through in vitro fertilisation. Being a father is one of the best things that has ever happened to me, and I was very proud to see IVF services reinstated in Peterborough and Cambridgeshire, following a campaign that I supported and helped to lead. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that IVF services and appointments are routinely offered across the NHS, in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance?

Will Quince: I, too, have two daughters, so I recognise much of what my hon. Friend said—

Rosena Allin-Khan: I do, too.

Will Quince: You do, too. Mine were not through IVF, but as a Back Bencher I also campaigned on IVF issues, because there was a postcode lottery on that around the country. That still exists to some extent and I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend to make sure that wherever people are in this country they can get IVF services.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Wes Streeting: The Conservatives have cut 2,000 GPs since 2015 and now too many patients cannot get an appointment when they need one: 3,000 patients are waiting a month to see a GP in Dover; 3,500 are doing so in Mansfield; 3,500 are doing so in North Lincolnshire; and 5,000 are waiting a month in Swindon. So why will the Government not adopt Labour’s plan to double the number of medical school places, paid for by abolishing the non-dom tax status, so that patients have the doctors they need to get treated on time?

Will Quince: I recognise the pressures on the system, but Labour has spent the non-dom money 10 times over. We are taking real action on this issue: real-terms spending on general practice is up by more than a fifth since 2016; as I said, we are investing £1.5 billion to create an additional 50 million GP appointments; we have recruited more than 25,000 additional primary care staff; and there are 2,167 more doctors in general practice; and we have the highest number ever in training.

Cancer Treatment: Waiting Times

Greg Smith: What steps he is taking to reduce the waiting time from receiving a cancer diagnosis to first treatment.

Steve Barclay: In February, the faster diagnosis standard was met for the first time. In addition, we are investing in additional screening, testing and tech in order to detect cancer much earlier.

Greg Smith: Recent data for the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB shows that 42.6% of cancer patients are waiting more than 62 days for treatment. That will only get worse without a significant programme of upgrading radiotherapy equipment and ensuring that there is a skilled workforce of radiographers. So what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that new, cutting-edge radiotherapy equipment is making it to the frontline, coupled with a fully staffed workforce to operate it and save those lives?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the interaction of workforce and capacity in equipment. That is why we have 810 more consultant training places over three years, and we have grants to enable more than 1,000 nurses to train, for example, in chemotherapy and 1,400 new recruits to the cancer diagnostic workforce. Obviously, that sits alongside the expansion in capacity, including both in our surgical hubs and our expanded diagnostic centres.

Meg Hillier: My constituent had emergency surgery for a brain tumour, but this was after six months of going to the doctor repeatedly with problem headaches. Brain cancer causes 9% of cancer deaths but accounts for only 1% of cases. Sadly, my constituent is terminally ill, but he is in a position to explain his experiences. He has asked me to raise with the Secretary of State the issue of what work is being undertaken on genome sequencing, which could have a major impact on better treatment for brain cancers. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State not only answered this today but wrote to me in more detail on it.

Steve Barclay: The whole House will send their best wishes to the hon. Lady’s constituent. She raises an important point about genomics, which is why we have invested in Genomics England and 100,000 babies are being screened—that is a key programme of work. The Minister for Health and Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) recently hosted a roundtable with key stakeholders on that, but I am happy to write to her with more detail, because the prevention and capability that is offered through screening is a great way of getting early treatment to people.

GP Appointments

David Evennett: What progress his Department has made on increasing the number of GP appointments.

Steve Barclay: I think the question is about GPs and workforce capability, and that is why we are investing in more doctors. We have recruited over 5,000 more doctors, including an additional 2,000 doctors in primary care.

David Evennett: An increasing number of my constituents are having difficulties obtaining appointments in GP surgeries. However, I was pleased to learn that the GP workforce in my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford has increased by an estimated 75% since September 2019. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what further steps he is taking to continue growing the workforce in general practice, which is so crucial to increasing the number of appointments available?

Steve Barclay: Now that I have found the right page in my notes I can be precise in telling my right hon. Friend that it is a 75.7% increase in his constituency, so he is absolutely right about that. Nationally, we have recruited an additional 25,262 full-time equivalent primary care professionals, so that is expanding the workforce capability in primary care. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and Secondary Care said a moment ago, it is part of our £1.5 billion investment in the workforce in primary care.

Charlotte Nichols: As the House will know, this week is MS Awareness Week. Early diagnosis and treatment of MS are vital to delay disability progression and help those with the condition to manage it, yet, currently, 13,000 people have been waiting more than a year for a neurology appointment after GP referral. A recent study suggested that the UK comes a shameful 44th out of 45 European countries  for neurologists per head of population. When will the Government bring forward a strategy to attract, recruit and retain the neurology workforce?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady raises an important issue related to MS. I am happy to write to her with a more detailed answer about the capability and the plan. There is always a tendency within government to lurch to a strategy rather than to look at what is needed for immediate delivery. I will happily set out what steps we are taking now as part of our pandemic recovery in order to target the workforce within the constraints that she raises.

In-home Health and Social Care Services

Mike Amesbury: What steps he is taking to improve access to in-home health and social care services.

Angela Eagle: What steps he is taking to improve access to in-home health and social care services.

Helen Whately: I want people to live independently in their own homes for longer with the care that they need. We are investing half a billion pounds annually through the disabled facilities grant to pay for housing adaptations, and supporting the home care workforce through our record social care funding increase and workforce reforms. Our new and expanded NHS virtual wards give people hospital-level care in their own homes.

Mike Amesbury: My constituent, Ewan, recently lost his grandfather. His grandfather would have liked to have spent more time at home in his last few days, but he could not because of resources—the people were not there. What are the Government doing about that? There is a real recruitment and retention crisis in the social care workforce.

Helen Whately: The hon. Member makes an important point about people spending their last days of life where they would like to spend them, which, more often than not, means at home. That comes down to supporting end-of-life care—hospices play a really important role in providing that care in people’s homes—and supporting the adult social care workforce. We are investing up to £7.5 billion in social care over the next two years and taking forward important reforms to support the adult social care workforce. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are increasing the amount of hospital-level care that people can get at home by expanding our virtual wards, which, by next winter, will mean that up to 50,000 people a month can be cared for to that level at home.

Angela Eagle: Despite ministerial complacency, Age UK has pointed out that, nationally, there are currently 165,000 vacancies in social care, which is a 50% increase on last year. In the Wirral, vacancies run at 16%, which is despite the Wirral paying the real living wage. That means that only 26% of hospital patients are currently being discharged from Wirral University Teaching Hospital when they are actually ready to go. Does the Minister agree that the neglect and underfunding of social care by this Government is costing more money through wasted provision in hospitals, when social care, if it were properly provided, could give a much better experience for people who are ready to leave hospital?

Helen Whately: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me another opportunity to talk about what we are doing to support adult social care: an extra £7.5 billion was announced at the autumn statement to support adult social, an extra £700 million was spent on supporting discharges into social care over this winter, and we have already announced £600 million to support discharges to people’s homes with the provision of social care over the coming year, because we recognise how important it is for people to get the care they need at home. The workforce are crucial to that, which is why we are taking forward our reforms to the adult social care workforce as announced a couple of weeks ago.

Topical Questions

Rupa Huq: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Steve Barclay: The Government support the right to take industrial action within the law, but equally the law is there to protect patients and NHS staff alike. Following legal advice, NHS Employers and my Department are confident that the proposed strike action by the Royal College of Nursing goes beyond the mandate it secured from its members, which expires on 1 May at midnight. While NHS Employers has sought to resolve the issue through dialogue, the RCN’s failure to amend its planned action has led NHS Employers to request my intervention. Even as we work to resolve those issues through dialogue, I can tell the House that I have regretfully provided notice of my intent to pursue legal action. None the less, I am hopeful that discussions can still be productive, especially those between the RCN and NHS England on patient safety, and that they will continue to be guided by the imperative to keep people who use the NHS safe.

Rupa Huq: The right to choose sounds attractive, but when diabetic eye disease and glaucoma seriously threaten the sight of millions, the fact that any qualified provider can and does cherry-pick reversible cataract work leaves the NHS with astronomical bills and all the complex cases. Will the Secretary of State praise award-winning clinicians Christiana and Evie at Central Middlesex Hospital and visit to see for himself how effectively writing a blank cheque for private treatment is destabilising NHS budgets and jeopardising the NHS’s ability to do award-winning research and to train junior doctors, who need routine work?

Steve Barclay: I am always happy to praise the brilliant work of clinicians up and down the NHS, who do a formidable job. Given the huge scale of the backlogs we face as a consequence of the pandemic, it is important that we not only use the full capacity available within the NHS, empowering patients through patient choice and technologies such as the NHS app to better enable that, but maximise the capacity in the independent sector.

Michael Fabricant: Following the excellent television campaign on bowel cancer, which by the way got me to take a test, can I now ask that we have a similar campaign to talk about the importance of  pharmacists? If people consult pharmacists rather than their GPs on occasion, it will take the pressure off general practices.

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point, and that is something that we are committed to doing. There is a huge amount of expertise within the pharmacy network, which is why we are looking, through technology such as the NHS app, at how we can better enable people to get the right care from the right place at the right time. Quite often, that is not by seeing the GP, but it might be by seeing those in additional roles in primary care or going to a pharmacist who can offer the right services.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Wes Streeting: A 13-year-old girl who has already waited more than a year for spinal surgery has seen her operation cancelled twice because of the Government’s failure to negotiate an end to the junior doctors’ strike. Why on earth is the Secretary of State still refusing to sit down and negotiate with junior doctors?

Steve Barclay: Like others in the House, my heart goes out to any 13- year-old girl in that situation. As the parent of a 12-year-old girl, I can only imagine how distressing it is to the family concerned to see that operation cancelled. That is why it is important that we have dialogue. The hon. Gentleman has said that the demands of the British Medical Association are unaffordable and unrealistic at 35%, as has the Leader of the Opposition. We have been clear on that, but the House saw that in our negotiation with the Agenda for Change staff unions we had meaningful, constructive engagement; that was how we reached an agreement with the NHS Staff Council, and we stand ready to have similar discussions with the junior doctors.

Wes Streeting: So why is the Secretary of State not sat down with them today? He says that he cannot negotiate because the BMA will not budge on 35%, but that is not true, is it? He says that the junior doctors have to drop their preconditions; they do not have any, do they? And he says that strike action will have to be called off before he can sit down; there are no strike days planned, are there? So is it not the case that he is quite happy to see hundreds of thousands of operations cancelled so that he can blame the junior doctors for the NHS waiting lists rather than 13 years of staggering Conservative incompetence?

Steve Barclay: It is slightly odd that the hon. Gentleman talks about 13 years when we are actually talking about a current industrial dispute. We have shown, through our negotiation with the NHS Staff Council, our willingness to engage and to reach a settlement. Indeed, the general secretary of the RCN recommended the deal from the AfC unions to her members. Unison—the union of which the hon. Gentleman is a member—voted for the deal by a margin of 74%. We stand ready to have engagement with the junior doctors, but 35% is not reasonable. He himself has said—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not need the Minister for Social Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), shouting from the end of the Treasury Bench. Okay? I call Henry Smith.

Henry Smith: What assessment has the Department made of antimicrobial resistance to superbugs originating in industrial farming?

Maria Caulfield: Successfully containing antimicrobial resistance requires co-ordinated action across all sectors. That is why the UK takes a “one health” national approach to AMR across humans, animals, food and the environment. Since 2014, the UK has reduced sales of veterinary antibiotics by 55% and has seen a decrease in antimicrobial resistance as a result.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martyn Day: The British Medical Journal has warned that the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership trade deal will make it harder for the UK to regulate tobacco and alcohol or banned products such as those containing harmful pesticides. Given that no health impact assessment has been carried out, The BMJ recommends that one should be performed now. Will the Secretary of State commit to assessing the deal’s threat to public health?

Neil O'Brien: We do not plan to debate any of our existing standards. We have some of the strongest standards for control anywhere in the world. We have no plans to get rid of any of those things.

Peter Aldous: Notwithstanding the work that the Government have done, the feedback that I am receiving from Suffolk-based NHS dentists is that there is still a very long waiting list for overseas dentists waiting to take the overseas registration examination, with more than 3,000 applicants and only 150 exams taking place each month. I urge my hon. Friend to leave no stone unturned in working with the General Dental Council to eliminate the waiting list as quickly as possible.

Neil O'Brien: We are leaving no stone unturned. Last month, we passed legislation enabling the GDC to increase the capacity of the ORE. We have also made it easier for overseas dentists to start working in the NHS: as of 1 April, no dentist will need to pay an application fee. We also want to radically reduce the time that dentists spend in performers list validation by experience, and we will set out further steps in our dentistry plan.

Kim Leadbeater: What is the Secretary of State doing to tackle the severe national shortage of desperately needed psychiatric intensive care beds, which means that people, including some of my constituents, have to travel hundreds of miles to see their loved ones?

Maria Caulfield: We are spending an additional £2.3 billion a year on mental health services, and we have recently announced £150 million for crisis community support, because we are trying to reduce the number of people being admitted in the first place by treating them at an earlier point in their mental health illness. That  will free up beds, but it will take time. Community crisis intervention is the way in which we want to make progress.

Anne Marie Morris: Investors need certainty and the British people need access to more medicines. The growth cap in the voluntary pricing agreement for branded medicines between the pharmaceutical industry and Government makes the size of the medicines rebate unpredictable. Will the Minister remove the growth gap from the 2024 voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access, to supercharge investment that is currently leaking to Germany and Ireland?

Will Quince: I can certainly ensure the House that we are seeking a mutually beneficial voluntary scheme that supports patient outcomes, a strong life sciences industry and a financially sustainable NHS. We have been working directly with industry to understand the impact of changes to VPAS on investments into the UK life sciences sector, and we remain firmly committed to VPAS, which, it is important to say, has saved the NHS billions of pounds and saved millions of lives by supporting patients with life-threatening conditions and giving them rapid access to new medicines.

Jeff Smith: I was very grateful to get fantastic treatment for a detached retina at the brilliant Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, but 551 patients have lost their sight as a result of delayed eye doctor appointments since 2019, and the backlog for ophthalmology appointments is,  at 630,000, the second largest in the country. The treatments are there, but what will the Government do to sort that problem out?

Steve Barclay: First, I very much welcome the good care that the hon. Gentleman received, and it is great to see him back in the Chamber. On the wider issue, that is why we have an elective recovery plan, in which we have applied a boost in capacity, particularly through the surgical hubs. We are looking at how we build greater resilience, especially in winter, when elective beds are often under pressure. We are also investing in areas such as eye treatment, and we are rolling out through Getting It Right First Time a programme of improvement in a range of areas, including that one.

Luke Evans: Provision for special educational needs and child and adolescent mental health services is one of the biggest issues in my inbox in Leicestershire, particularly in respect of delays in assessment and diagnosis. One of the Government’s plans was to introduce school mental health support teams. The Health and Social Care Committee heard that the aim was that 35% of pupils should be covered by 2023. May we have an update on progress and on when we are likely to reach 100%?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am happy to update the House, as we have already achieved 35% coverage. By the end of the month, we expect to have 399 operational mental health support teams, covering 3 million children and young people. We plan to go further, with over 500 such teams by spring 2024.

Mike Amesbury: Last week, I visited Leftwich Community Primary School in my constituency. The joint head teachers raised the desperate attempts that are made to secure NHS dentists for children and families in the community. Aside from publishing a plan, will Ministers intervene and make sure that that happens in Cheshire and Merseyside, and throughout the country?

Neil O'Brien: Absolutely. We have already taken action to increase the provision of dentistry, and that has begun to have an effect. Activity—the number of people seen—is up by a fifth over the past year as a result of the reforms that we have begun to make by reforming the old contract, but we must go further.

Sara Britcliffe: One of my constituents, Bethany Whitehead, suffers from functional neurological disorder, which often presents with a number of debilitating symptoms. Bethany has often been left waiting two to three years before seeing a consultant. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this further?

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I can say to her here and now that functional neurological disorder was previously regarded through a diagnosis of exclusion. It now has a rule-in diagnosis with available treatments, which is a major step forward in destigmatising the disorder. I am very happy to meet her to discuss this further.

Lisa Cameron: As chair of the all-party parliamentary health group, I have heard from UK patients who struggle to access GP appointments from chain GP practices. Many of those practices have very low ratios of GPs to patients, including, in one case, only two GPs registered for 30,000 patients. Will the Department meet the APPG to address these grave concerns?

Neil O'Brien: We have increased real-terms spending on general practice by over a fifth since 2016, and as a result there are now 10% more appointments happening every month. We are grateful to GPs for that. We have more doctors and clinicians, but we want to keep going, and I am happy to discuss this with anyone who has useful ideas to keep us powering forward.

David Davis: Yesterday, when the Prime Minister met business, the huge value of the NHS database was highlighted. Unfortunately, the previous occasions on which the NHS has tried to open its database have been unmitigated disasters. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to stick closely to the recommendations of the Goldacre report so that we can deliver the database while protecting the privacy of patients?

Steve Barclay: It is a huge opportunity. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter outside the Chamber, and I met Ben Goldacre in the summer to discuss his fantastic work in the context of covid. It is absolutely right that, given the potential of artificial intelligence, there are huge opportunities in relation to health inequalities and allowing us to better target provision. I think my right hon. Friend would agree that we should do that through the prism of patient consent.  One thing that we are trying to build into the NHS app is the ability to better empower the patient to decide what they wish to sign up to and what they would like their data shared with.

Dan Jarvis: By 2040, cancer rates in the UK are expected to rise by a third. That is half a million new cases each year, so hundreds of thousands of lives literally depend on the Government implementing a long-term, fully funded, comprehensive plan for cancer. Will the Secretary of State recommit to a 10-year cancer plan?

Steve Barclay: We are committed to a major conditions paper, not least because many people with cancer have multiple conditions; that is why it is important that we look at these issues in the round. With the Minister for Social Care, I had a very useful roundtable with key stakeholders, including the cancer charities. The key issue is that as part of our work on cancer checks, over 320,000 more people are receiving treatment for cancer compared with last year—that is around fifth higher—and we are expanding our capacity through the diagnostic centres, the surgical hubs and the expansion of the workforce. All of that fits within the strategy we have through the major conditions paper.

Andy Carter: St Rocco’s Hospice in Warrington provides invaluable palliative and end-of-life care for families. However, the charities that run hospices around the UK are finding it incredibly difficult to raise funds. Will the Minister give us an assurance that she is working very closely with the sector to ensure that those services continue to be provided?

Helen Whately: My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the very important work that hospices do in our communities, and I fully support hospices as a sector. The funding for hospices generally comes through the NHS and the local integrated care boards that commission the services they provide, as well as, of course, from their own fundraising efforts. I am speaking to NHS England about the support it provides to hospices, because I am very keen to make sure that they get the support that they need.

Tim Farron: I have in my hands the draft business case for a satellite radiotherapy unit at the Westmorland General Hospital in Kendal. If it is approved and commissioned, residents in my community who have cancer will no longer have to travel two, three or four-hour round trips every day to get lifesaving treatment; they will be able to get it closer to home. Will Ministers meet me and the clinical specialists who helped draft the business case, so that we can make it come to fruition?

Helen Whately: Yes, I am very happy to meet the hon. Member.

Maggie Throup: Building on the novel approach to clinical trials that was so successful for the covid-19 vaccines, what more is the Department doing to capture that success and the willingness of volunteers to come forward, as well as to streamline processes across participating bodies for clinical trials of future medicines?

Will Quince: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Over 12,000 more participants a month are recruited into clinical trials than before the pandemic, but we recognise that there is much more to do in order to be internationally competitive, including around regulation and speed of approval. I am pleased to say that in the coming weeks, Lord O’Shaughnessy will publish his independent review into UK clinical trials, and I very much look forward to receiving his recommendations.

Diana R. Johnson: When we had a shortage of doctors, the last Labour Government established the Hull York Medical School. We now have a shortage of dentists, so it is time for a Hull York dental school. This proposal has cross-party support in the Humber, so I wonder whether a delegation of MPs could meet the Minister to discuss taking the initiative forward.

Neil O'Brien: I am very happy to meet the right hon. Lady as we work towards the workforce plan and the dental plan.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Mark Fletcher to ask the final question.

Mark Fletcher: The Minister is aware that BUPA recently closed the dental practice in Bolsover, leaving a severe shortage of NHS dentistry in the constituency. I met the ICB yesterday to discuss the various options for the constituency, but will the Minister commit to meeting me and the ICB to talk through those options and see what we can do to maintain NHS dentistry in Bolsover?

Neil O'Brien: I have already met my hon. Friend, but I am very happy to meet him and his ICB to make sure that we commission the services that are so needed locally.

Bill Presented

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Kemi Badenoch, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Michelle Donelan, Secretary Lucy Frazer, Kevin Hollinrake, Paul Scully and Julia Lopez, presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of competition in digital markets; to amend the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 and to make other provision about competition law; to make provision relating to the protection of consumer rights and to confer further such rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 294) with explanatory notes (Bill 294-EN).

Universal Jurisdiction (Extension)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Brendan O'Hara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes may be tried in the United Kingdom regardless of the nationality or residence of the offender; and for connected purposes.
The Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill would tighten existing legislation on how we bring to justice those responsible for the world’s most heinous crimes. The Bill would allow legal systems across the UK to do that, irrespective of where the crimes were committed, regardless of the nationality or location of the perpetrators or victims, and without having to consider whether the accused person or the victim had any specific connection to the UK. In short, the Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill is about saying to the world’s worst criminals that there is no hiding place and there will be no immunity.
Under international law, states are required to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute certain crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction. It is the international community’s way of recognising that there are crimes so grave that we all have an inherent responsibility and collective interest to ensure that they are prosecuted. The Bill seeks to help the UK meet its international responsibilities by amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001. Although that Act gives courts jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, it is still woefully deficient in providing what we would want from legislation claiming to operate universal jurisdiction.
The main problem with the 2001 Act is that even with the most heinous crimes, if they were committed outside the UK, they can be prosecuted here only if the accused person is a UK national, a UK resident or subject to UK service jurisdiction. While some may say that the UK does have universal jurisdiction when it comes to such crimes, the reality is that what we have in the UK could best be described as a system of extraterritorial jurisdiction. That is what the Bill seeks to remedy, so that we instead have a real and meaningful system of universal jurisdiction for those crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. That is important, because given what is happening in the world right now, this is a live and pressing issue, whether in Ukraine, Myanmar, Xinjiang, Tigray or many, many other places.
Many people are working right now on how the UK should change its definition of universal jurisdiction. I put on record my thanks to Dr Ewelina Ochab of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute for her invaluable assistance in putting the Bill together. I also thank the Clooney Foundation for Justice, which has done an enormous amount of work on this topic in recent months, and which will in the next couple of months release its own report on universal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom.
I understand that among that report’s key recommendations will be that the UK Government amend section 51(2)(b) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to remove the requirement that for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the  crime needs to have been committed either in the UK or, if committed outside the UK, by a UK national or resident for our courts to have jurisdiction. The report will argue instead that the UK should provide jurisdiction over those international crimes committed anywhere in the world, even when that offence bears no relation to the UK.
As the Clooney Foundation for Justice report will set out, our courts already have universal jurisdiction when it comes to torture and certain other war crimes, which can be prosecuted regardless of the defendant’s nationality. There is no convincing explanation for the distinction that is drawn between the law on torture and those other international crimes. One consequence of the loophole might well be that Russian generals with blood on their hands could still travel to the UK, go shopping in Knightsbridge, undergo medical treatment and dine out in London’s best restaurants without facing the risk of arrest for the most serious and heinous crimes in the world. The foundation argues that that must change, and I wholeheartedly agree.
In this changing world, it is becoming increasingly clear that the UK’s position on universal jurisdiction is simply not fit for purpose. That is not just because we operate this extraterritorial jurisdiction, but because under current law, proceedings for international crimes cannot be brought without the consent of the Attorney General. Ultimately that means that decisions to prosecute these crimes will be a political decision. Consequently, the UK cannot possibly play as meaningful a part in ensuring justice and accountability as it should. That may go some way to explaining why, to this day, British courts have not prosecuted anyone for their involvement in genocide, despite the fact that we have suspected perpetrators residing in the UK from both the Rwandan and the Yazidi genocides.
Even by the Government’s own assessment, almost 1,000 British nationals travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Daesh. They were all complicit in the horrific atrocities, the killings, the rapes, the sexual enslavement of Yazidi women and girls, and much more—so much more, indeed, that this House unanimously declared in April 2016 that Daesh atrocities did indeed constitute a genocide. The UK Government also estimate that 400 British Daesh fighters are now back in the UK, yet only 32 of those returnees have been convicted for terror-related offences, or less than 10% of the returnees. Not one—not a single—Daesh fighter has stood trial in the UK for the rape and sexual enslavement of Yazidi  women and children. Not one of them has been charged with torture or the forced recruitment of young boys into the ranks of Daesh fighters. Not one of them has been held to account for the mass graves that are still being uncovered in Sinjar, and not one of them has been asked to explain the fate of the 2,700 Yazidi women and girls who are still unaccounted for. They have all gotten away with genocide.
But it does not have to be this way. Many of our friends and allies have changed their law to meet the changing situation. In Germany, the law is unambiguous, saying that universal jurisdiction will apply to all criminal offences against international law. That means, regardless of where an offence was committed and whether it involves a German citizen, an accused person can be tried before a German criminal court. It has been this determination to pursue universal jurisdiction—genuine universal jurisdiction—that has resulted in the first ever prosecutions and convictions for members of Daesh for genocide.
In January 2023, President Biden signed into law the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act, which greatly expands the scope of individuals who can face prosecution for US war crimes. That Act will assist the Department of Justice in prosecuting alleged war criminals who are found in the United States, regardless of where they committed a crime or the nationality of either the perpetrator or the victim. The law was given extra impetus in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where there is now a growing body of evidence of war crimes being perpetrated by Putin’s army.
Despite many warm words, the harsh truth is that, if UK domestic law is not strengthened, we will be unable to play a full part in bringing some of the world’s worst criminals to justice. That is why we need proper, universal jurisdiction, and that is why we also need to remove that extra political hurdle of seeking the permission or consent of the Attorney General before we can prosecute for genocide. This Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill aims to address these issues, and help the UK play a full and appropriate role in ensuring justice, accountability and the upholding of international law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Brendan O’Hara, Drew Hendry, Caroline Lucas, Liz Saville Roberts, Kirsty Blackman, Claire Hanna, Patrick Grady, Jim Shannon, Ben Lake, Patricia Gibson and Stewart Malcolm McDonald present the Bill.
Brendan O’Hara accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 296).

Opposition Day - 14th Allotted DayOpposition Day

Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Jim McMahon: I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to set a target for the reduction of sewage discharges, to provide for financial penalties in relation to sewage discharges and breaches of monitoring requirements, and to carry out an impact assessment of sewage discharges; and makes provision as set out in this Order:
(1) On Tuesday 2 May 2023:
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that Order) shall not apply;
(b) any proceedings governed by this Order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
(d) at 6.00pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this Order and call the Member for Oldham West and Royton or another Member on his behalf to move the motion that the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;
(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this Order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.
(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (18) of this Order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.
Timetable for the Bill on Tuesday 2 May 2023
(3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Tuesday 2 May 2023 in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 8.00pm.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 10.00pm.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Tuesday 2 May 2023
(4) When the Bill has been read a second time: (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee   of the whole House without any Question being put; (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by The Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or motion made by a designated Member;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion made for a new clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day
(8) If on any future sitting day any message on the Bill (other than a message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords, this House shall not adjourn until that message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded.
(9) On any day on which such a message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message—
(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;
(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.
(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted—
“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Reasons Committee
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme Orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
(13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.
(14) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(15) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this Order apply.
(18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order 15 In line 4 (1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—
(a) the Member for Oldham West and Royton; and
(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the Member for Oldham West and Royton.
(20) This Order shall be a Standing Order of the House.
The motion would allow for parliamentary time on Tuesday 2 May to progress Labour’s Bill, the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill, which would finally see an end to the Tory sewage scandal. The reason we are here today is that the country we love, and the quality of life for millions of working people, is being treated with utter contempt: dumped on with raw human sewage; dumped on on an industrial scale; dumped on with at least 1.5 million sewage dumps last year alone; and dumped on for a total of 11 million running hours. That is a sewage dump every two and a half minutes. Just in the course of this debate, 70 sewage dumps will take place in the country, in the places where people have invested everything they have, where they have put down their roots and where they have invested the most precious of things—their families and shared futures. Those sewage dumps are going into the seas where people swim, the canals alongside which people take their dogs for a walk and the very beaches where our children build sandcastles.

Stephen Crabb: rose—

Alun Cairns: rose—

Jim McMahon: I will make some progress and take some interventions later—[Interruption.] Hang on; your moment will come.
It goes to our leisure and beauty spots. Businesses rely on tourists coming with confidence.
It is clear that the Tories either do not know, or do not care about the human impact of the Tory sewage scandal. This affects every stretch of our coastline across the country, and it shows the contempt that the Tories have for our seaside towns, from Hartlepool to Hastings, from Bournemouth to Falmouth, from Camborne to Blackpool, and everywhere in between. Beyond the coast, our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are home to our stunning lakes, and our rivers, the arteries of our nation, are being sullied by the Tory sewage scandal.

Alun Cairns: rose—

Kelly Tolhurst: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I say to the hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman that, yes, the hon. Member has to give way, but you cannot permanently be stood there until somebody—[Interruption.] You do not need to give me any indications. I am telling you what the rules are and the rules will be applied. Secretary of State.

Jim McMahon: Thank you, Mr Speaker—we’ve 12 months yet. I will take interventions once I have made progress on this section. Hon. Members should not worry; their opportunity to defend the last 13 years in government will come—they should not worry too much about that.
At its heart, this speaks to whether families should have the right to live a decent and fulfilled life. People look to our seas, lakes and rivers for quality of life. They are the very places where people live, work and holiday together, and where families create memories, forge bonds and strengthen relationships by enjoying the beauty that our country has to offer. More than just the daily grind of work, it is about who we are and it is those moments together that make life worth living. But the truth is that the Tories are turning our green land into an open sewer.

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I would like him to outline when he or the Labour party realised that sewage was being put into rivers and seas. When was the Labour party made aware of that originally?

Jim McMahon: I welcome that intervention. I would also welcome an explanation to the hon. Lady’s constituents as to why there have been 200 sewage incidents in her own backyard. That is why her constituents send her here—to ensure that their interests are put right—[Interruption.] I will come on to Labour’s record, but I warn Government Members that it may not paint the last 13 years in a good light.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim McMahon: I will make some progress.
This is an environmental hazard, a health hazard and an economic hazard. The full scale of the billions of pounds that the Tory sewage scandal is costing our businesses and local economies is still not fully known. Why? Because the Government will not undertake an economic assessment of the impact of sewage dumping. What do they have to hide? [Interruption.] Members will like this bit—hang on. While the Secretary of State has been on taxpayer-funded jollies to Brazil, Canada, Egypt, France, Japan, Panama and the US, as shadow Environment Secretary, I have travelled to every corner of the country to hear first-hand about the impact of the Tory sewage scandal. While she has been in duty free, I have been here on duty—that’s the difference—[Interruption.] There’s more, hold on. You’re in for a bumpy ride. The next three hours will not be like first class, I can tell you that much.
I have met businesses that have been forced to pull down the shutters when sewage alerts drive people away from beaches. I have met people in Hastings who are suffering the effects of having contracted hepatitis and Weil’s disease just because they encountered sewage in the open waters. I have met community groups such as that self-organising, fundraising and monitoring the water quality in the River Kent. They are saying to the Government that enough is enough. I heard the same things in Oxford and when I met Surfers Against Sewage in Cornwall.

Sally-Ann Hart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member said that he came to visit Hastings and spoke to people—he never informed me of his visit to Hastings.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order, but I would say to the hon. Lady that, if somebody has been to her constituency, it is absolutely correct that Members should give notice to the MP whose constituency they are visiting. I do not care which side of the House Members sit on. You must do the right thing and let a Member know that you are entering their constituency.

Jim McMahon: I am very happy to look into that point. As a matter of course, we always ensure when visiting the constituents of Conservative MPs that as a matter of respect we inform the local MP. I would love nothing more than for a Conservative MP to attend those visits and explain their voting record to their constituents. I know that Helena Dollimore, the Labour and Co-operative candidate, was very much made aware, so I will follow that up and ensure, if it did happen, that it does not happen again.
Earlier this week, I met environmental groups from across the country to hear about the impact that the Tory sewage scandal is having on their communities. They stand proud of their communities, but they are equally angry, and they are right to be angry. Only this weekend, we celebrated St George’s Day and spoke about what makes England so special, and what makes it a green and pleasant land. For example, the brilliant Lake Windermere, England largest lake, formed 13,000 years ago from the melting ice, is a world heritage site and attracts 16 million visitors every year. What William Wordsworth once described as:
“A universe of Nature’s fairest forms”
is now dying at the hands of this complicit Government. One member from the Save Windermere campaign told us that, due to the constant pollution, a whole five-mile stretch of the lake has been turned bright green because of excessive pollutants being dumped in it. Even the glorious Lake Windermere is not off bounds.
The fantastic coastline of Cornwall draws in millions of visitors and is a magnet for surfers—surfers who face the prospect of becoming ill simply by going out in the water. There are campaigners for the River Ilkley, in self-styled God’s own country, Yorkshire.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim McMahon: I will take an intervention shortly from the Opposition Benches.
Mr Speaker, do you know that raw human sewage is even being discharged moments away from these very Houses of Parliament? Members should think about that when they go to vote. There is no place exempt from the Tory sewage scandal—and what a metaphor for the last 13 years of a Tory Government.

Mike Amesbury: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. My constituency is named after the River Weaver, which is at the heart of our community. We have the River Mersey as well. Some 19,000 hours’ worth of raw sewage has been discharged into those rivers. I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving the whole House the opportunity to stand up for our local rivers, waterways and beaches. I encourage Members from across the House to join us in voting for the motion today.

Jim McMahon: That is exactly what this debate is about: MPs who care about the places they represent standing up for what is right, instead of making excuses for 13 failed years in government. That is exactly why Members are sent to this House, and others could take note.
What we have seen is that there is no respect for our country, there is no respect for our values, there is no respect for our history and there is no respect for our future. What is more, there is no respect for the working people who make this country what it is.
What was the Secretary of State’s response when this issue was first raised? First, she told Parliament that meeting water companies was not her priority, passing the buck to her junior Minister; then she broke the Government’s own legal deadline for publishing water quality targets; and then she announced, repeatedly, that she would kick the can down the road on cleaning up our waterways. Since then, we have had three panic-stricken announcements of the Secretary of State’s so-called plan, each one nothing new but a copy and paste of what went before. We know the Tories do not have a plan. At best, they have a recycled press release. That is the difference. I give way to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

Robert Goodwill: I do not think anyone would argue that we do not need to invest more in better water quality. More parts of the country need to see schemes such as the new water treatment works in Scarborough and the 4 million litre storm water tank, also in Scarborough. What we need to debate is timescale and affordability. Does the hon.  Member think that it is slightly ironic that, when even the most modest prediction is that his proposals would put £1,000 on the average water bill, the second debate this afternoon is on the cost of living increases?

Jim McMahon: Honestly, I am staggered. I say that with respect to the Chair of the EFRA Committee. Our figures are based on the Government’s figures, and I am happy to put them in the House of Commons Library. DEFRA’s own figures put a cost on Labour’s plan and, let me tell him, the lowest estimate is 10% of what has been taken out in dividends. Those are not our figures; they are the Government’s own figures. If the Environment Secretary has not read her own assessment of ending the Tory sewage scandal, it will be in the Library at the end of the debate; Members can read it for themselves. This is her day job, right? She is meant to understand the data her Department produces and form a plan behind that. I am sorry that my expectations were obviously too high. [Interruption.] Members will enjoy the next bit.
Let us not forget the Environment Secretary’s first spell in DEFRA. In her three years as water Minister, she slashed the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget. Its ability to tackle pollution at source was cut by a third, resources to hold water companies to account were snatched away and there was literally the opening of the floodgates that allowed sewage dumping to take place. What have been the consequences? There has been a doubling of sewage discharges: a total of 321 years’ worth of sewage dumping, all on her watch and straight to her door. She said that getting a grip of the sewage scandal was not a priority, but something for other people to sort out. What she really meant was that it was not politically advisable, because her own record spoke for itself. I have a simple question: how can she defend the interests of the country when so implicated in destroying it? The public are not stupid. They see this issue for exactly what it is: the Tory sewage scandal.

Kelly Tolhurst: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim McMahon: I have already given way once. Let me make some progress.
Last week, Labour published analysis of Environment Agency and Top of the Poops data which showed that in 2022, Tory Ministers—this is the Cabinet, the highest seat in government—allowed 7,500 days’ worth of raw human sewage to be dumped in their constituencies. The data showed that there is a sewage dump taking place every 22 minutes in their own backyard. That Tory Cabinet Ministers are willing to allow that to happen to their own constituents really speaks volumes. In Suffolk Coastal, a constituency that may be familiar to the Environment Secretary, there were 426 sewage dumps last year. In the Chancellor’s constituency, there were 242. In the Prime Minister’s Richmond, Yorks constituency—proof that this goes all the way to the top—there were 3,500 sewage dumps.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he acknowledge that the only reason he is able to reel off those statistics is because the Conservative Government have ensured that we now have 91% monitoring, soon to be 100%, across the country? Will he also acknowledge that that  has only happened under a Conservative Government and that the last Labour Government did absolutely nothing?

Jim McMahon: I am not one to offer advice to those on the Government Benches, but I will just say this to eager Back Benchers bobbing for their Whips: they might want to check their constituency’s data before getting up to defend the Government’s record. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Seely, you are trying to catch my eye, but you will not do it by chuntering from that position.

Jim McMahon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady will know that her own constituency has had nearly 2,000 sewage dumps. If she wants to defend that record to her constituents, then so be it—fine. But if she does not want to remind her constituents, I can guarantee this: the Labour candidate will. That is what this debate is about and why Members are so exercised, let us be honest. Are Members exercised because our rivers, lakes and seas are being dumped on, or are they exercised because they have now realised that they might have to face the consequences of that dumping? That is what the excitement is about.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim McMahon: I am going to make some progress.
The Government will blame everybody: the Victorians, devolved Administrations, home drainage, housebuilders, people flushing items down the loo. Now, it is true that this issue has to be faced on multiple fronts, but there is one common theme that has run throughout the Secretary of State’s period in office. What is it? They never take responsibility; it is always somebody else’s fault; it is never at the door of the Government. Let me be clear: the levers of power were always there to be pulled. The truth is that the Government did not even lift a finger to try and that is why we are in this situation today.

Conor McGinn: One hundred years ago in St Helens we had chemical factories, coalmines, glassworks and no environmental regulations, but with 835 sanctioned spills in 2022, pollution in our rivers and waterways is arguably worse now than it was then. Does my hon. Friend share the frustrations of the volunteers who look after the Sankey canal and valley, and engage in activities such as litter picks, that no matter how much rubbish they get from the towpath, there is 10 times more going into the canal itself?

Jim McMahon: That is a really good point. Many people think that this must be an issue that affects our seas and our national parks, but it goes to every community. For those who live in an urban community, the stream or canal network near their home is being dumped on. For many communities that is all they have. That is their bridge to nature, and it is being treated with such disrespect by the Government in a way that cannot carry on.
I want to return to the issue of levers of power, because quite a lot of what I hear is that the scale of the challenge is overwhelming and that to face it is far too great a mountain to climb. Economic regulation of the water industry in both England and in Wales has always been controlled by the Tories here for the last 13 years,  treating England and Wales as an open sewer. That lever could have been pulled to improve water performance, holding water companies to account and resourcing the work needed to combat sewage pollution in England. [Interruption.] I hear the Environment Secretary chuntering; hopefully, she will address that.
To be absolutely clear about where power sits in our democracy and where Government responsibility sits when it comes to water: first, economic regulation—the levers of power, the purse strings—are not devolved at all.

Alun Cairns: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. The shadow Secretary of State may have inadvertently misled the House. He said moments ago that water and environmental policy were reserved, but they are devolved. I suspect that he might be embarrassed that the Welsh Government have not acted—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You will leave—

Alun Cairns: He is seeking to obfuscate responsibility—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have told you before, Mr Cairns, that when I stand up, I expect you to sit down. When I start to speak, I do not expect you to carry on speaking. Mr Cairns, you have been pushing your luck for quite a few weeks, and I am serious. I hope that in future you will take notice, because we will make sure that you do. I do not want to get to that point, but you are pushing me towards it. I am not responsible for what the shadow Secretary of State says. He has heard your point—although it was not a point of order—and I will leave it to him.

Jim McMahon: I am not sure whether Parliament can do some sort of induction for Conservative Members on how Parliament works and where power sits, but the House of Commons Library is very good at providing briefings for MPs. To be clear, the economic regulator Ofwat reports solely to the Environment Secretary for the UK. That is a matter of fact. It is not devolved; it is for the UK. The economic levers of power have allowed £72 billion of shareholder dividends to go out the door on one side, while England and Wales have been turned into an open sewer on the other. That goes right to the door of the Secretary of State.
I credit the Welsh Labour Government for their record of leading on nature and the environment. Like me, they say that whether in England or in Wales, every part of the land that we care about and love, where working people have a right to a decent life, should be kept in good check and with the respect that it deserves.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim McMahon: I will make some progress.
Conservative MPs should see this as a second chance, which everyone deserves. Let us take our mind back to the first chance, which was the passage of the Environment Act 2021, and an amendment that Labour backed that would have introduced a legal obligation to bring down sewage dumping progressively. It was blocked by Conservative MPs, who voted against it. It fell at the first test, but we believe in second chances. Today provides that second chance to right that wrong and to get behind Labour’s plan to clean up the Tory sewage scandal.
Let me come to Labour’s record, because the Conservatives would have us believe that the scale of dumping was inevitable, that there is nothing we can do about it, and that there is no alternative or somehow it has always been terrible. That is not what the evidence says. The last Labour Government had a proud record of delivering improvements in water quality. Shortly after the Labour party left office, the Environment Agency—in the Secretary of State’s own Department—reported that our rivers were cleaner than at any time since before the industrial revolution. In fact, in 2002, the then Environment Minister—the former Member for Oldham West and Royton, as it happens—celebrated how clean the water was when he took to it in Blackpool, with cameras looking on, to celebrate the proud moment that it met bathing water quality status. I would not think that the Environment Secretary would have the confidence to go swimming on the shores of Blackpool today, since over the past year there have been 22 incidents—62 hours—of raw human sewage being dumped in those waters, straight into the Irish sea.
We have shown that Labour will clean up the Tory sewage scandal—we have done it before, and we can do it again. In the absence of any leadership from the Government, Labour is stepping up. Today, there is finally something worth getting behind, after waiting 13 lost years—a whole generation of opportunity taken away.
Let me address cost. We are in the middle of a Tory cost of living crisis. Households are being hammered, and at every angle it seems that things are getting worse, not better. People see that when they go to the supermarket for their shop—again, a risible failing by the Secretary of State responsible for food, who does not think it is her job to have a roundtable with the food industry—and straight through to energy bills and mortgages. People are feeling the pinch. In their water bills, people are already paying for a service. Sewage treatment is itemised in every one of our bills but is not being delivered. Instead, the Tories are allowing water companies to cut corners and to dump sewage untreated.

Paul Holmes: Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

Jim McMahon: Let me make this point, because it ties in with following the money and tracking back to the impact. The storm overflow data, which water companies themselves provide to the Government, tells us that not a single one of the dumping incidents from last year was a result of exceptional circumstances. They were not down to rainfall or storms—the water companies and the Government say so. It is about a lack of treatment and investment. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) can learn to be quiet without the attention. That is basic good sense.
We need to address the issue of who pays. We believe that the polluter should pay. At the same time, water companies have walked away with £72 billion in dividends, and water bosses have enjoyed payments and bonuses of millions of pounds, even after sewage dumping had been identified. The Bill is about fixing those loopholes that allow poor practice and corner cutting, to ensure that the Government and the water companies together are acting in the public interest. It is not right that working people are paying for the privilege of having raw human sewage dumped in their communities.

Paul Holmes: rose—

Jim McMahon: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has been persistent.

Paul Holmes: I note that the shadow Secretary of State’s paragraph on the Labour record was very short—perhaps because under the Labour Government 7% of sewage discharges were monitored, whereas now that is 91%, with an ambition of 100% through the legislation that the Secretary of State has laid out. Why can the shadow Secretary of State not stand at the Dispatch Box and welcome that, and accept that his party did nothing about this issue in its time in government?

Jim McMahon: I am not sure that was worth waiting for. The hon. Gentleman was so persistent that I thought a gem would come to advance the debate, but the House was left wanting, yet again. I am proud of Labour’s record. We went from industrial pollution affecting our rivers and canals to the cleanest water since before the industrial revolution. That progress and legacy should have been built on, but they have been trashed. We have gone backwards, not forwards.
We need to change the culture in water companies and demand change, by setting down legally binding targets and enforcing straightforward penalties for failure. The Bill protects bill payers in law—no ifs, not buts. The cost must and will be borne by water companies and their shareholders, protected in the Bill in black and white. That is the basis of our motion, and it is what Members on all sides of the House will vote for later—not a fabricated version of reality that does not hold up to the evidence; no more jam tomorrow, asking people to wait until 2050 at the earliest to see an end to the sewage scandal; in black and white, a plan finally to end the scandal.
Let me outline what the Bill does, before I close and allow other Members to speak. It will deliver mandatory monitoring on all sewage outlets and a standing charge on water companies that fail.

Kelly Tolhurst: Done.

Jim McMahon: One minute. That will mean that where a discharge station is not in place or is not working, the water companies will pay a standing charge, assuming that sewage is being discharged. Automatic fines for discharges will end the idea that people have to go through a costly and protracted investigation and prosecution to hold water companies to account. Water companies will pay on day one, the second that sewage is discharged. Legally binding targets will end the sewage discharge scandal by 2030. We will give power to the regulators and require them to properly enforce the rules. Critically, and in black and white, we will ensure that the plan is funded by eroding shareholders’ dividends, not putting further pressure on householders by adding to customers’ bills.
Let me be clear: any Tory abstentions or any votes against the motion or the current Bill are yet another green light to continue the Tory sewage scandal.

Anthony Mangnall: The hon. Gentleman has made the fatal error of thinking that we are supporting the water companies, when we are holding them to account. That is exactly why we have threatened them with unlimited fines; exactly why Ofwat has passed new  rules to restrict dividend payments; and exactly why we now have the most stringent measures on water companies in Europe. What did the Labour party do, because it did not hold water companies to account?

Jim McMahon: The hon. Gentleman is definitely currying favour with the Conservative Whips Office, and I give him credit for energetically reading out the Whips’ top lines—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) said earlier that her office was not informed about our visit to her constituency, when we met our fantastic candidate, Helena Dollimore. I have been handed a copy of an email that proves not only that her office was informed of the visit, but that that email was acknowledged by her office.

Lindsay Hoyle: Does the hon. Member wish to respond to that point?

Sally-Ann Hart: indicated dissent.

Lindsay Hoyle: Okay. Carry on.

Jim McMahon: I will come straight to the point: had the Conservative Government, in their 13 years in office, treated this issue with the importance that is needed and dealt with the water companies—

Anthony Mangnall: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question now?

Jim McMahon: The hon. Gentleman can answer this question for his constituents: over the last 13 years, why has an average of £1.8 billion every year been taken in shareholder dividends and not invested in water infrastructure? That is a record. [Interruption.] I do not care what the Whips Office has briefed; I care about the evidence. That is what every debate in the House should be based on. I respectfully ask him to go away and test the evidence, rather than reading the top line.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim McMahon: A lot of Members have put in to speak in the debate and they have a right to be heard, so I will bring my remarks to a close.
This plan is the first step in Labour’s reform of the water industry and will work towards building a better Britain. After 13 years, the Tories have run out of road, run out of ideas and run out of time. Labour is ambitious for Britain and for working people. That starts with treating the country, working people and local businesses with the respect that they deserve.

Therese Coffey: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from
“an impact assessment of sewage discharges;”
to the end of the Question.
The public are rightly disgusted by the excessive sewage discharges from storm overflows, and so am I, my colleagues on the Government Benches and hon.  Members across the House. So are this Government. That is why we have taken more action than any other Government on the issue.
We created our storm overflow discharge plan, with an impact assessment showing that it will require the largest ever investment by the water industry, up to £56 billion. Last month we set out our new comprehensive, integrated plan for water. That will deliver a clean and plentiful supply of water for people, businesses and nature, building on the significant investments and progress already made in cleaning up our waters since 2010.
Nearly three in four beaches are rated excellent for bathing, which is up from just half in 2010, when Labour left power. We have taken on the micro and single-use plastics that are a plague for marine life; we are supporting the super-sewer in London, which is taking over 10 years to construct; and there is consistent action, right across the country, on cleaning up our waters. That is why we are seeing much-loved species, such as seahorses, otters and seals, returning to our rivers and seas.
By requiring water companies to start monitoring, we unveiled the scourge of sewage. It was a Conservative Minister, Richard Benyon, who ordered that. By the end of this year, not by 2030, all combined sewer overflows will have monitors. Informed by monitoring, we are now in the situation where the water companies are under active criminal and civil investigation by the Environment Agency and by Ofwat, which is the largest investigation ever. That is why I move the amendment in my name and that of the Prime Minister, because this Government have already taken action.
With regard to this motion, we already have a target for a reduction in sewage discharges, which we will put into law; we have already consulted to remove caps on financial penalties; and we have already undertaken an assessment of sewage discharges. However, unlike the Opposition, we have a credible, costed plan to stop the scourge of sewage.
Today we have already heard a barrage of blame and finger pointing, but we have not heard a credible, costed plan to tackle the issue. I am used to the personal attacks, the diatribes and the cheap shots, but I can tell hon. Members that Labour’s plan is not cheap. My parents lived in Frodsham for some time, so I am very conscious of the River Weaver, and I grew up in Liverpool, so I am very conscious of the River Mersey, which has got cleaner and cleaner over time thanks to ongoing continued investment.
Frankly, we should be having a grown-up debate about the issue. A lot of the plan set out by the shadow Secretary of State is pointless because it is already being done. We were talking about food, and I guess the hon. Gentleman has taken up growing magic mushrooms: the Opposition did not publish the data, they were not monitoring it, they kept people in the dark and they fed them BS for all the time they were in government.

Stephen Crabb: Is my right hon. Friend slightly surprised by the tone that has been struck by the Opposition? Does she agree that they need to show a bit more humility, because if they were serious about these proposals being their official party policy, would we not expect to see some evidence of that being implemented in a part  of the country where they are in power—namely, Wales—where there are no targets and no credible plan for tackling the issue?

Therese Coffey: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Secretary of State is ambitious to take my job in the future, but I am confident that the Conservatives will win the next election, partly because we are used to cleaning up this sort of rubbish when Labour leaves office.
I gently say to the shadow Secretary of State that Ofwat is a non-ministerial department and the Welsh Government provide a strategic policy statement to Ofwat for matters in Wales. It is a devolved matter. The hon. Gentleman is dragging the Welsh Government into the debate today, but he should be aware that in 2022 Wales had, on average, 38 spills per outflow, whereas in England it was down to 22 spills. Tackling the issue is not straightforward, but Wales is not doing well. I am not going to blame the Welsh Government out loud, but I am conscious that they would be better following us and having a credible, costed plan, instead of looking away from Westminster.

Caroline Lucas: The complacency that the Secretary of State is displaying is frankly shocking. Not one English river is classed as being in a healthy condition, none meet good chemical standards and few meet good ecological standards. The Conservatives have been in power for 13 years. That is a record of failure. In addition, dividends now average £1.6 billion a year, which is money going out of the system altogether. Why will she not accept that privatisation has been a complete failure, put water back into public hands and make sure the investment goes where it is needed?

Therese Coffey: The hon. Lady should be aware that during the last decade we put in place legislation that made it tougher to meet ecological status. That includes taking on the monitoring of certain chemicals, which is not done by the Welsh or Scottish Governments. That is why we will continue to work on this issue in a specific way. We are leaning into the issue.
I genuinely wish that Labour had started to sort out the issues when in office. I am not saying that the Labour Government did completely nothing, but they were certainly not clear with the public about what was going on. In 2010, we knew there was no money left after Labour’s damage to the public purse. Indeed, the former Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury was honest enough to tell us that in his own writing. What we did not know was quite how much mess was left behind for a Conservative Government to clean up yet again, which is what we set about doing.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the privatisation that has just been criticised, investment has doubled to £160 billion?

Therese Coffey: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about sources of financing. Do the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and Opposition Members want to see fewer hospitals and schools being built, or less going towards all the other ways in which we are spending taxpayers’ money?

James Sunderland: I listened to what the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) had to say, but under the last Labour Government the pumping of raw sewage into our waterways was unregulated, unmonitored and completely unrestricted. Since 2010, this Government have increased the monitoring of outflows, which will be at almost 100% next year. They have imposed £150 million in punitive fines on water companies. They have sponsored investment of more than £56 billion, over decades, into the water network. They are the first Government to tackle the issue for many decades. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Labour spokesman was talking poo?

Therese Coffey: I think that is a polite way of describing what we heard.
Sewage overflows are not new. They are the result of Victorian plumbing infrastructure combining waste water and surface water pipes, and they were designed to act as a safety valve so that the impact of heavy rainfall would not lead to sewage backing up into people’s homes. That was more than 100 years ago; since privatisation, we have seen much-needed investment into our leaking water network. More than 30% of pipes, if not close to 40%, have been replaced in that time.
It was in Labour’s time in government, back in 2003, that the EU took the Government to court in relation to sewage discharges from overflows. In 2009, it was a Labour Government who introduced operator self-monitoring, allowing water companies to mark their own homework. After the minimal progress under Labour, it was a Conservative Minister who recognised the problem and recognised that we needed an objective means of measuring discharges. That is why water companies were instructed in 2013 to monitor when and for how long their storm overflows operated. That data is published online; thanks to our Environment Act, it will now need to be provided in near-real time. As I have said, all storm overflows will be monitored by the end of this year.
It is the monitoring and opening up of information that has exposed the scale of the issue. It is why we have already had successful criminal prosecutions, it is why we have an unprecedented criminal investigation under way right now, and frankly it is why we are seeing a Labour party that is desperate to make up for its failures in office.

Selaine Saxby: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to clarify to the House that in most cases, and certainly in my constituency, storm overflows are over 95% rainwater? Certainly, at no point is raw sewage being dumped on our beautiful beaches.

Therese Coffey: I agree. Facts are our friends in these matters, and it is important that we continue to ensure that our constituents are well informed.
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that there is a massive difference between a press release and a plan. We have already set out our plans and are delivering them: the environmental improvement plan; our integrated plan for water, which is tackling all forms of water pollution from transport and metal mines to forever chemicals and farming; and our storm overflow reduction plan, which I am pleased to announce today that we are  planning to enshrine further in law. Through the Environment Act 2021, we will legislate for a clear target on storm overflow reduction in line with our plan. That clear, credible and costed legally binding target will add to our transparent and determined approach to solving the issue, while being careful with consumer bills.

Margaret Greenwood: The Secretary of State will know, having grown up in Liverpool, how beautiful the coastal constituency of Wirral West is. The Rivers Trust found that a sewer storm overflow in Caldy spilled 75 times in 2022, for a total of more than 1,700 hours, discharging directly into the Dee estuary. It is a very beautiful part of the world, where people go to enjoy the beach, let their children play, enjoy water sports and so forth. It is also very important environmentally—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Lady is meant to be making an intervention, not a speech. It has to be brief.

Therese Coffey: I share with the hon. Lady a love for that part of the north-west. I grew up there, and I used to cycle down to the River Mersey regularly on the Otterspool prom. I was not quite so much a visitor to the other side, apart from when I was visiting family elsewhere.
It is thanks to the openness of this Government in getting the monitoring done and publishing it that the scale of the scourge of sewage has been unveiled. The hon. Lady should welcome that. She should also welcome the active plans that we have been undertaking, with investment, so that even more action will be under way to reduce that sewage, if not eliminate it.

Paul Holmes: The constituency that I have the privilege of representing has the River Itchen and the River Hamble. Last week I met Southern Water, which now has an investment plan, purely because of the 91% of monitoring that this Government have put in place. Would that infrastructural investment have been able to go ahead if just 7% of our rivers were being monitored?

Therese Coffey: Quite clearly, the answer is no. There would not have been the scrutiny that there is today, nor would there have been the investigations that are already under way. The Hamble is a very precious sailing river that goes out into the Solent, so it is important that people can have confidence. That is why our plan has investment behind it so that we can continue to ensure that our waters are cleaner than ever before.

Matt Western: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Therese Coffey: No, I will try to make a bit of progress.
After the many press releases, it is good finally to see a little bit of detail about what the Labour party would do about sewage, but to some extent it is already being done. Frankly, today feels like another gimmick, if not a sham, from the Labour party.
I understand that the shadow Secretary of State’s Bill, which has been hastily prepared—I believe it was published last night—is pulling Wales into this. We have already somewhat covered that issue, but based on his logic, I am not surprised that he is embarrassed about  the Welsh record. Of the longest sewage discharges in Britain in 2022, the top two were in Wales. Three of the top five constituencies for hours of sewage discharged were in Wales, according to Top of the Poops. In 2022, the average number of spills per outflow in England was 23; in Wales it was 38. As I say, I am not seeking to blame the Welsh Government, but—speaking candidly—facts are our friends. Instead of fudge and obfuscation, we will keep going with our credible plans, because we are determined to clean up our waters.

Simon Baynes: Does the Secretary of State agree with Law Wales, which states that
“Senedd Cymru generally has legislative competence in relation to all aspects of water quality, water resources and water industry”?
Contrary to what the shadow Secretary of State said, this is the responsibility of the Welsh Government.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as is the person he quoted. This is a matter that is dealt with by the Welsh Government, who issue the same strategic policy statement to Ofwat that my Department delivers. Indeed, a price review is under way right now.

Alun Cairns: When my right hon. Friend introduced legislation, it was clearly aimed at England, but did she give the Welsh Government the option of extending those tighter restrictions to Wales to ensure a tighter and more uniform structure across both nations?

Therese Coffey: Understandably, the Environment Act principally addresses England. It is important that we respect devolution to the Welsh Government, who have it in their power to act and who do different things. I do not think they shy away from the fact that this is a difficult challenge. I commend them on the many beautiful beaches in Wales, which I have visited many times, including in my right hon. Friend’s constituency and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). However, this is not straightforward and there is no overnight fix. Credible plans are needed, so this Government are right to be making progress.

Robert Goodwill: Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), does the Secretary of State agree that Welsh Water is a not-for-profit organisation, so the shadow Secretary of State’s argument that dividends should be used to pay for improvements does not wash in Wales?

Therese Coffey: Well said.

Simon Jupp: East Devon residents are rightly disgusted by sewage in our waters, and so am I;  I am glad that the Secretary of State agrees. I live by the sea in Sidmouth, and I have repeatedly called on South West Water to clean up its act and our water. It has been fined millions thanks to this Government, and it should never reward failure for bonuses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if it does not clean up its act, it must face the full force of the law, including unlimited penalties?

Therese Coffey: I absolutely agree. We exercised the necessary foresight in drawing up the legislation that became the Environment Act. We listened to the regulators, because we wanted to understand what was happening. Ofwat asked us to give it powers that would allow it to link  dividend payments to performance, including environmental performance, and that is being done. We have completed the consultation, and we now need to review it, but we intend to ensure that the Environment Agency can impose unlimited penalties, which I think will be welcomed by my hon. Friend’s bill payers.

Matt Western: I have been listening intently to what the Secretary of State has had to say, and I admire her confidence, but that confidence is not shared by my constituents and many other members of the public when it comes to the condition of our rivers. May I invite her to come to my constituency and look at the River Avon? Perhaps she will don a cozzie, do a Gummer, and get in the water and see just how terrible it is.

Therese Coffey: I think I will be in Stratford-on-Avon in a few weeks, and I may well be able to find time to visit the hon. Gentleman. I have a lot of rivers, and of course the sea, in my own constituency, Suffolk Coastal, which stretches from the River Orwell in the south to the Hundred river in the very north, with many rivers in between. I am very conscious of the importance of this issue to our constituents, and I am proud of the fact that beaches in Felixstowe have had excellent bathing water status pretty much since the qualification arose. I am also aware that the Denes beach in Southwold lost that status, which is why, as a local Member of Parliament, I intervened, along with Anglian Water, to clean up the treatment works in Southwold. I am delighted to say that the beach is now back to a three-star rating. There is a case for ensuring that we have targeted activity, but overall, what I expect as Secretary of State is to receive the plans for every storm overflow that I have requested from the water companies by June.

Katherine Fletcher: My father is a civil and structural engineer and I have engaged with him regularly on the subject of sewage pollution, but I think that one of his more familial aphorisms is particularly important: “To fix a problem, you have to know about it.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that we now have the 90-odd per cent. knowledge of what is going on that allows us to prioritise plans is one of the Government’s key achievements?

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is wise in her years, and she is absolutely right. It is a case of trying to ensure that we have the necessary information. I repeat that the process of getting the information out there began a decade ago, and the Environment Act allows us to ensure that near-real-time information is available as well.

Bob Seely: I listened closely to the speech from the shadow Secretary of State, which I have to say was pretty poor—and given that I have listened to quite a few Labour speeches in my time, that takes some beating. Can the Secretary of State shed any light on why a Labour party that hates privatised utilities would allow the self-monitoring of water quality unless it was intended to hide a problem?

Therese Coffey: What can I say? When the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) ran for the leadership of the Labour party, he suggested that there should be common ownership, which I would describe as nationalisation. We are seeing   yet another flip-flop from the Labour party when its members realise that it is one thing to get into power and another thing actually being in it.
We need to continue with what we are trying to do to cut sewage discharges. We have heard about the target of 90% by 2030, and it is a headline-catching figure, but there has been no credible, costed plan in any previous media scrutiny or, indeed, today. That is why I suggest that the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is detached from reality and trying to pull a fast one with the public.
Our storm overflows discharge reduction plan outlines the largest infrastructure programme in water company history, and will deliver the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills, transforming our Victorian sewerage infrastructure. The plan sets targets that will be underpinned by legally binding changes to company permits, designed to front-load action in particularly important areas such as bathing waters. To ensure that these ambitious targets are realised, I have also asked the water industry to produce a detailed action plan for every single storm overflow in England by June.
A critical element in the development of these targets and our plan was an assessment of technical deliverability and cost, which is why the Government published a full impact assessment and an additional report on the costs of eliminating discharges from storm overflows. If the shadow Secretary of State wants to deliver a 90% reduction by 2030, it would have been helpful for him to inform the House how he plans to practically deliver £56 billion worth of capital projects in the next seven years, let alone separate enough combined pipes to go almost two and a half times around the earth in those seven years, or indeed build the equivalent of 40,000 Olympic-size swimming pools of additional storage capacity. What will the Labour party’s proposals really mean for customers’ bills? Even the hon. Gentleman is not naive enough to think that there is a magic money tree to pay for this.

Anthony Mangnall: The Secretary of State has just mentioned the important issue of water companies producing plans. Can she reassure me, and all the people of the south-west and south Devon in particular, that those plans will have to be enforced, and that we will be keeping a very close eye on their implementation?

Therese Coffey: I can indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will continue to ensure that the licence fees and the costs of permits cover inspections, and we will consider further what additional funding changes might be needed for that purpose.
Perhaps Labour intended to introduce a sewage tax or something similar, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, although it would take such a tax some 500 years to fund the level of investment required. That is, dare I say, another classic Liberal Democrat policy—all soundbite but detached from reality. Meanwhile, we have an ambitious, credible and realistic plan.
As for mandatory sewage outlet monitoring, the Government are already doing that; 91% is already in place, and the rest will be completed by the end of the year. The Environment Agency will also ensure that water companies carry out monitoring in line with their  permit conditions. The monitoring requirements introduced by the Government have been instrumental in enabling the regulators to undertake the largest criminal and civil investigations of sewage discharges in water company history, covering more than 2,200 treatment works. Through powers in our landmark Environment Act, we are also making it a legal requirement for the near real time data on discharges to be available to the public, and the consultation on those regulations is live now. We are going even further by placing a duty directly on water companies to monitor the water quality impact upstream and downstream of all their assets—not just storm overflows but wastewater treatment works as well.

Andrew Gwynne: This is not just the responsibility of the water companies, because it is not just water assets that discharge into our rivers. Within a short section of the River Tame in Greater Manchester there are three water assets, but there are also Johnson brook and Wilson brook. Johnson brook regularly discharges raw sewage into the Tame because of a misconnected sewer somewhere along the reaches of that brook, and Wilson brook regularly discharges chemicals into the Tame because of industrial processes. The Environment Agency’s actions are appalling. What more is the Secretary of State doing—

Eleanor Laing: Order. We cannot have these long interventions, because too many Members want to speak. It is simply not fair.

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very specific constituency matter. I am sure that if he were to write to me or to the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), we could follow it up.
I am conscious that a great many Members have applied to speak today, but I want to make a few more points clear. I have been advised by my officials that issuing automatic penalties could actually limit subsequent liability for more serious enforcement action and higher penalties when an investigation found that an incident was more severe than was initially thought. When a pollution incident occurs, the severity of the incident and the degree of culpability need to be properly investigated. It is through such proper investigation that the Environment Agency can determine the most appropriate response, including criminal prosecution for the most serious incidents.
I am sure that the policy is well intentioned, but it strongly risks making enforcement weaker and potentially letting the most serious polluters off the hook. Water companies must be liable for any illegal activity: polluters must pay. That is why, since 2015, the Environment Agency has carried out more than 50 prosecutions, securing court fines of over £140 million, including the record-breaking fine of £90 million handed to Southern Water. Again, we are going further to ensure that water companies face substantial penalties, which are easier to deploy than going through the courts. We are consulting on reforms to the civil penalties that the Environment Agency can issue to make the process quicker and easier. As I have said, the Government’s preferred option is to remove the cap on penalties entirely, which would pave the way for unlimited penalties for water companies that break the rules.
There is a great deal more that I could have said, but we listened to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton for more than half an hour, and it is important for other Members to be able to contribute to the debate.
It is the role of Ofwat to scrutinise proposals from the water companies to make sure that customers get good value for money. We will try to carry out other activities such as trying to reduce the cost of these new projects overall, but I also want to flag up that we will continue to ensure that we deliver our integrated plan for water. It is a blueprint for a truly national effort to meet the stretching targets that we set through the Environment Act 2021, and it includes actions to tackle every source of pollution, including sewage discharge and pollution from agriculture, plastics, road run-off, chemicals and pesticides. The plan is underpinned by significant investment. Its scale and deliverability, plus the detail of it, mean that it will go further and faster than anything we have ever done before, and it is certainly going further and faster than most developed nations have ever gone before.
In summary: Labour wants monitoring; we have already delivered it. Labour wants fines; we have delivered record fines. Labour wants larger penalties; we are making them unlimited. Labour says that it wants stronger sanctions, but it would in effect weaken them. Labour wants a plan; we have already published one. Ours is fully costed and credible. Labour says that its plans will not impact household bills, but it cannot say how much they will cost. It was a Labour Government who were taken to court by the European Union for allowing the discharge of sewage, and 13 years later in Wales, where Labour is actually in government, they are discharging sewage almost twice as often as in England. That is not a plan; it is an uncosted political game and a recipe for tripling the average water bill. I encourage the House to support our amendment today, to stop the false attacks and to focus on delivering cleaner water. That is something that all our constituents want.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: It is obvious that an awful lot of people want to speak this afternoon, so we will start with a time limit of four minutes—I am sorry, not five minutes—which will quickly go down to three minutes, so I advise most people sitting in the Chamber to look at their notes and cut them in half.

Sally-Ann Hart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). I understand he emailed my office on 7 September last year and received a response.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting the record straight with that point of order, and I see that the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton has acknowledged her apology.

Jim McMahon: indicated assent.

Eleanor Laing: Let us continue with the debate.

Chris Evans: In September 2021, I stood in this place and called for an investigation into the activities of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water. I asked for Ofwat and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to investigate its practices. I did this because it has responsibility for parts of the Wirral, Cheshire, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. My request was based on an appalling record that has seen communities having their water cut off for days and their rivers being polluted with sewage. I am sad to report not only that these calls have been met with a deafening silence but that things have got worse. The Rivers Garw, Tawe, Teifi, Usk and Taff and even the River Wye are six of the most polluted rivers in UK. What they all have in common is that they are the responsibility of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water. Last month, research found that raw sewage was discharged in Islwyn for more than 9,179 hours in 1,850 sewage dumping events. Natural Resources Wales has said that there will be no salmon in Welsh rivers within 20 years.
What is Dŵr Cymru’s response to this record of shame? It is to reward its chief executive, Peter Perry, with a bonus of £232,000, on top of his basic salary of £332,000. This is a company serving some of the most deprived and isolated communities in the country. When I wrote to him to query his pay, he was proud to tell me that he had worked his way up from being an apprentice. He said:
“My pay is not determined by me. It is not influenced by me.”
He went on to claim that he was pretty much the lowest paid of his peers in England and Wales. Try telling that to the customers who are struggling to pay the second highest bills in the country. Just over the border, Severn Trent Water has some of the lowest bills. The worst thing is that it is impossible to switch suppliers. Mr Perry is not an isolated case. In 2020-21, three executive directors were paid bonuses of £931,000. At the same time, raw sewage was dumped into Welsh rivers 100,000 times. It all adds up to the same thing: Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is profiting from pollution.

Hywel Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the recourse that we are expecting from the Labour Welsh Government on storm overflows is so late?

Chris Evans: I think the hon. Gentleman will have to refer that question to the Welsh Government, but I thank him for that little bit of mischief and for the extra minute he has just given me.
It is my sincere hope that, if this motion passes, we will see the end of these unwarranted, unfair bonuses while imposing uncapped fines on the companies that are polluting our beautiful rivers. For me, this goes much deeper than simple profiteering. I grew up along the River Taff, and as I looked into the river, I would see the colours of the rainbow. To my young mind, it seemed that rainbows lived in the river. But they were not rainbows; they were the thick film of oil polluting our rivers. That was over 30 years ago. Since then, our Welsh valleys have become green and beautiful, with our newly emerging tourism industry. It is not uncommon to see people fishing, kayaking and wild swimming, but all those activities are at risk. It is amazing, when we have spent so long cleaning up our rivers, that all that work is being undone by the work of one company.
Although I have to hand it to Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water: it is good at crisis communications. According to the chief executive, in the past year the company has spent over £800,000 on advertising and public affairs. When I spoke out about this 18 months ago, the public affairs officer sent an email defending the company’s practices within minutes of me sitting down. It is certainly busy sending endless emails to politicians.

Alun Cairns: I understand and share many of the concerns the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, but does he recognise that the legislative responsibility for restrictions in this area lies with the Welsh Government? Does he share my concern and disappointment that the restrictions in Wales are nowhere near as tight as those that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is proposing to introduce in England? Does he agree that we should introduce a common system adopting the high standards that she talked about?

Chris Evans: The right hon. Gentleman is probably enjoying my speech because he thinks that this is the responsibility of the Welsh Government, but it goes much deeper than that. This pollution affects us all; it affects our children, it affects everybody. We have to find a way to work together on this. I am not going to stand back and allow Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water to carry on like this just because it hides behind the fact that it is a non-profit. Something needs to be done and it needs to be done now. That means working in partnership with this Government and the Welsh Government. I will support any measures to work together on this because it goes much deeper than what we are doing at the moment.
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water likes to send out tweets highlighting schemes to save customers money. It also runs television adverts with helpful tips for saving money, under the banner “For Wales”, giving the impression that it is somehow linked to the Welsh Government. To top off my frustration with the company, I recently had a request from the polling company Ipsos MORI, as many of us do. The companies that fund the surveys remain anonymous, but it did not take much to deduce who it was when I was asked such questions as “How would you rate Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s performance?” and “Do you know about its plans to end pollution in Wales?” It did not take a genius to work out who had funded that survey. When I complained, I was told by the public affairs department, with an apology, that I should not have been contacted because of my views on the company. The money spent on this type of work would be better used to improve its service rather than its reputation.
As I have said, it is difficult to speak out on this matter but I genuinely believe that things need to be done now. Mr Perry told a Senedd Committee that sewage discharges
“are not where we want to be”.
People are paying an average of £499 a year for their bills and they desperately need a return on those bills. I hope that by supporting this motion today we can give them some sort of recompense for what they are going through.

Philip Dunne: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). I welcome what he said about trying to work cross-party to solve this problem. That is what I have been doing since this Parliament began. I do not want to dwell on the private Member’s Bill that I introduced over three years ago, but it is surprising that it has taken the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) three years to come up with his own private Member’s Bill. Having read it, it seems to me that he has not read the Environment Act 2021, introduced by this Government a year and a half ago. The Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill is one of the weakest documents I have ever seen, and it was clearly concocted and manufactured purely for the purposes of this debate. As he said in his opening speech, the Bill was introduced to benefit Labour candidates in the next parliamentary election, whenever it comes, and in next month’s local elections. The political opportunism is shameful.
However, in the spirit of seeking to focus my remarks on something useful, I will dissect some of the specific errors in the Water Quality (Sewage Discharge) Bill. First, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, clause 1 talks about water quality monitoring requirements. Two years ago, the Environmental Audit Committee’s “Water quality in rivers” report specifically called for the improved monitoring of our waterways. We have heard that Lord Benyon, the Conservative rivers Minister at the time, introduced monitoring as a result, and we are nearly at 100%. We called for upstream and downstream monitoring of the impact of discharges into rivers, which is precisely what was included in the Environment Act. Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to accelerate the measure to bring it into effect from 1 October, which is completely unrealistic. We have not yet agreed the technical specifications to be able to test water for the four parameters, so there is no supply chain in place to do that. Hopeless.
Clause 2 of the Bill talks about adverse impacts and seeks to accelerate and define the progressive reduction of sewage discharges, which are also covered by the Environment Act, to try to prevent 90% of such discharges by 2030. The Secretary of State has said there is no clarity on how much that would cost, but we know that it could cost hundreds of billions of pounds, adding £1,000 to customers’ bills and diverting the entire construction industry to fix the problem. Over the next seven years, which hospitals and schools would not be built as a result of Labour’s proposal?

Anthony Mangnall: My right hon. Friend is making an extraordinarily important point about finding a balance between attracting investment and ensuring that work is delivered to address the problem. Can we go further in encouraging water companies to keep that balance in order?

Philip Dunne: I will come on to that in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes the valid point that there is not enough dividend income for the water companies to pay for the billions of pounds in the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, as the Labour party fancifully suggests. The companies cannot pass the whole bill on to customers, so they have to be able to go to the markets, which are actively looking to invest in green projects of this nature. The money is there, but it will only be delivered through the private sector.
Clause 3 of the Bill talks about financial penalties. Labour is calling for penalties for the use of storm overflows. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, this is a question of degree. We already have penalties, and it is the Conservatives who introduced the water restoration fund, on which we are currently consulting, so that the proceeds of any fines resulting from the 2,000 permit breaches that are currently being investigated by Ofwat and the Environment Agency, as a result of this Government’s direction, will make the polluter pay. That is happening. The Labour motion suggests that it could happen instantly, but that would put the entire water system in disarray. This is another completely unrealistic proposition.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is calling on the Government to produce a discharge strategy, so he clearly has not read the storm overflows discharge reduction plan that the Government published a year ago. He also calls for a legal obligation to consult Welsh Ministers. Frankly, we have just heard about the appalling performance of Welsh Water under this Welsh Government. For further clarity, the 83,000 spills in Wales represent almost 22% of the total number of spillages across England and Wales. The last time I looked, Wales represented about 5% of the UK population, not 22%. That is a hopeless example, and the last thing we should do is take advice from the Welsh Government.

Dan Jarvis: Parliament debated sewerage in the summer of 1858, during the great stink. In every respect, it beggars belief that, after 165 years of technological advancement and social progress, we are still debating sewage pollution in our waterways, but we are because something is going terribly wrong. The status quo is not working, and it is time to consign sewage pollution to history.
Water is not just another commodity. It is a vital public resource, and we should manage it for the public good. I accept that the task of reforming the water industry for the public good is huge, and we have to work together to get it right. Water is essential but, let us be honest, filth is found in nearly every UK waterway. In Barnsley, for example, Yorkshire Water pumped raw sewage into our rivers and streams for 13,228 hours in 2022, and that figure is almost certainly an underestimate because monitoring budgets have been cut. It has not helped that, due to ever tighter budgets, the Environment Agency’s role in monitoring and, where necessary, prosecuting illegal dumping in our waterways has been curbed. Since 2010, environmental protection funding has dropped by 80% and enforcement funding by 40%. Prosecutions fell from almost 800 in 2007-08 to just 17 in 2020-21.
Although England’s main water companies were cautioned or fined hundreds of times for sewage dumping between 2010 and 2021, the total fines amounted to just 0.7% of their profits. Water companies paid £57 billion in dividends between privatisation in 1991 and 2019. Combined with the servicing of debt, those shareholder payouts have added around £93 to average yearly bills. This is not some operational issue that can be solved by small tweaks to the failing system; it is a systemic problem that requires transformative action and an approach that sees water as a basic necessity rather than as a commodity.
The current arrangements for regulating the water industry mean that the regulator is simply not equipped to tackle the challenges we face. We need a reformed regulator that is focused on protecting the environment and the public. It should have a social and environmental mission, and a responsibility for helping to push through a co-ordinated plan to address climate change, pollution and infrastructure upgrades. Crucially, a reformed regulator should bring together stakeholders, including local and regional government, community groups, businesses and experts. Campaigners should also be included, not least Feargal Sharkey, who has worked tirelessly to clean up our waterways.
Regulating water for the public good means safe, sewage-free waterways and affordable bills that provide value for money to consumers. Cleaning up our water has always been a political choice, and it is in the Government’s gift if they think it is time for fundamental change. I hope they do, but I strongly support Labour’s motion because it is past time that we stopped managing our public resources for private profit. Instead, we should support them for the public good.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: After the next speaker, the time limit will go down to three minutes.

Oliver Heald: This is an important issue, and I agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) that all parties in this place should work to improve what is a very difficult situation for our constituents and the country.
My constituency has eight chalk streams, and I have been campaigning for many years to improve their quality, often with support from Labour Members such as Martin Salter—he is a keen angler—and cross-party members of the all-party parliamentary group on chalk streams, which I helped to set up.
I was shocked when two of my substantial chalk streams, the Beane and the Mimram, ran dry in 2007. I took the Labour Minister to see them, and he was shocked by their condition. The World Wide Fund for Nature joined me and others in starting a campaign, “Rivers on the Edge”, to reduce the huge amount of water being abstracted from these streams. We were successful in that campaign, although by then the Government had changed. It then became clear that not only were these poor streams being abstracted, but they faced pollution, problems with agricultural practice next to them, with nitrates going into them, and all sorts of other problems, including sewage overflow.
I pay tribute to Charles Rangeley-Wilson, who has been involved in all the campaigns, including those against pollution and soil erosion, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), whose Bill I supported; we both rebelled slightly against the Government on one occasion over that issue. Charles chaired Catchment Based Approach in producing a restoration strategy for chalk streams, which is a good document that the Government support. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) came to its launch by the River Mimram  in my constituency, and it sets out a national chalk streams strategy. Although many of its recommendations are not about the problem of sewage overflows, it does cover that.
The Government have taken powers in the Environment Act 2021 and the Agriculture Act 2020 that would enable a catchment-based approach to tackling the range of issues involved in river quality. The water plan, which has been released recently, shows where the investment would be, with fines imposed and money reinvested in improving water quality. One of the main recommendations was to have some sort of protection and priority status for chalk streams. I know that the Secretary of State is concentrating on water generally, but Lord Trenchard has tabled an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and I wonder whether she would be prepared to consider it.
We know that the state of our rivers and streams is not what it should be, but between 2000 and 2010 we really did not know that, because the monitoring did not take place. It came as a shock that our rivers were in the state they were in. I welcome the fact that the Government are now being transparent, are committing to targets and are really taking this on.

Eleanor Laing: The time limit has now reduced to three minutes.

Mike Kane: Pope Francis said in 2015 in his encyclical, “Laudato si”:
“The earth, our home, is beginning to look…like an immense pile of filth.”
He was not wrong when it comes to the rivers in the UK. I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for coming, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), to a meeting at Jackson’s Boat, on the trans-Pennine trail, on the River Mersey in my constituency. We met Jamie Woodward, the physical geography professor from Manchester University who is doing so much work for us on the Mersey in our local area.
When we met, we were so pleased to see how well the Mersey was being used by cyclists, walkers and kayakers. However, according to the Environment Agency data, in my constituency United Utilities is the worst offender for dumping sewage into our local rivers and coastal waters. It pains me to say that, because I generally have a great relationship with United Utilities—it helps with my cost of living events all the time—but it had almost 70,000 discharges into our regional waterways. The smoking gun or incontrovertible proof is the loo roll, sanitary ware and baby wipes that bedeck tree roots, branches and plants along the course of the river. I cycle along it from my constituency to Stockport, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), every week and see this with my own eyes.
I may have misheard the Secretary of State, but I cannot go along with her idea that the River Mersey is getting cleaner. Greenpeace recently said that it is more polluted than the great Pacific garbage patch, as a result of a recent scientific investigation that it carried out.  The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who is sitting next to the Secretary of State, has done great work on floodplains and flood alleviation, so I am not just making a party political point.
The River Mersey rises in Stockport and heads through the north-west to Liverpool bay. In 2022, it was 70 miles of pollution, with raw sewage being pumped into the water 1,187 times, with the pumping of untreated human faeces and urine happening for 3,346 hours. This issue is too important for us all. There are existential consequences for our environment, for our public health and for businesses that rely on the beauty and nature to attract business and investment. These waters are the same ones that the children of United Utilities staff and its shareholders wade through. It is unconscionable that it continues these practices in full knowledge of that. I urge it and its pension funds, Lazard Asset Management, BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, not to sanction this any longer. I urge them to do the right thing today.

Robbie Moore: I am pleased to be here again with an opportunity to discuss this important issue. Improving water quality, be it of our river systems or coastal environments, is incredibly important and all of us in this House care deeply about it. That is why I was pleased to vote for the Environment Act, which put in place key mechanisms, one of which obliges all water companies to monitor water quality and publish real-time data on storm overflows. We are nearly at a position where we will have 100% data collection.
The second mechanism is investment, with a requirement on all water companies to deliver up to £56 billion of capital investment over the next 25 years in improving our water quality. Thirdly, the Secretary of State can issue a direction on water companies to ensure that they enact their ability to clean up our rivers. The fourth mechanism is immediate investment, with direct investment of up to £7 billion in the next 25 years.
All those are great measures, but it is has to be noted that the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens actively voted against them. They voted against direct investment of £56 billion to clean up our rivers. All of us should not forget that during this debate. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have also brought out the plan for water, with a requirement actively to reinvest all fines on water companies into schemes to improve our environment. I am pleased that the Conservatives have brought that forward.
Ilkley has the River Wharfe, the first river to be awarded bathing water status in the UK. That application was generated by the Ilkley Clean River Group, which worked incredibly hard to get it over the line. I had many a conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and the Secretary of State on that. What does it deliver? More involvement in active monitoring and Yorkshire Water is investing up to £13 million in infrastructure work in Ilkley. All those mechanisms will help to improve the River Wharfe in my constituency.
So I am pleased about the Environment Act and the measures we have brought forward, but I am incredibly disappointed that the Labour party is using this opportunity  to proactively do something that all Conservative Members are doing already: we are bringing forward positive measures that are going to help clean up our river systems. It is disappointing that once again the Opposition are choosing to play party politics with something that is much more important to our constituents: cleaning up our river systems.

Samantha Dixon: We all dream of crystal-clear rivers winding their way through the beautiful British countryside, into our towns and cities, and out into a clean and glistening sea. Sadly, that is not the image that constituents up and down the country are familiar with. Instead, they are faced with the reality of endless hours of raw sewage being dumped into our rivers.
The Government have been weak on water companies and soft on sewage. As a result, our rivers and seas are plagued by sewage, agricultural run-off and diffuse pollution. Shockingly, analysis shows that sewage dumping is taking place every two and a half minutes. We all know that the environmental consequences are catastrophic, but it is not just the environment and the wildlife that are affected. The Tory sewage scandal has serious consequences for public health and for businesses that rely on the beauty and nature of Britain to attract visitors and thrive.
That is certainly the case in my constituency. The River Dee, which flows through it, is one of Chester’s greatest assets, playing a vital part in our history and day-to-day life. The Groves, on the riverbank, is home to numerous businesses, which rely on the beauty and of course the cleanliness of the river. It is a popular destination for Cestrians and visitors alike to enjoy leisure activities. That is why, when I was elected at the end of last year, one of my first acts was to bring together Welsh Water, local river groups, businesses and residents for a summit on the Dee to set out a vision for a clean river, free from the frequent sewage discharges that we see today.
Businesses and sports clubs that rely on the river have told me of the serious consequences that they are facing: people are less keen to take part in river-based activities, and customers are even turned away from hospitality businesses on days when the smell is too bad. Chester businesses are losing trade as a direct result of the Government’s sewage scandal. Indeed, on previous occasions, the world-famous Chester regatta—the oldest regatta in the world, which is celebrating its 290th anniversary this year—has had to be abandoned because of sewage discharges. I sincerely hope that, by the time of its 300th anniversary, sewage discharges will be a thing of the past.
According to data published by the Rivers Trust, a total of 919 hours’ worth of untreated sewage and storm water was discharged into the river in 2020. Despite nearly half a billion pounds being cut from the budget by central Government in the past 13 years, innovative projects such as Cheshire West and Chester Council’s new 1 km rainwater drainage tunnel are helping to alleviate the pressure on our sewage system and reduce the amount of foul waste that ends up in the Dee. Only half the funding towards the drain costs was provided by Government. That is just a drop in the  ocean—or rather a drop in Dee—of what is actually needed to tackle the scale of the problem. The scale of change needed to eradicate—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I thank the hon. Lady.

Derek Thomas: We all care about this issue. I am a Cornish MP and know more than anyone how difficult the issue is for constituents who really care not just about the quality of the water in which they swim, but about marine life and the importance of our rivers for supporting really good ecological systems. We often refer in this place to the responsibilities of the water companies, but we do not talk about the fact that what must go into the system has to come out somewhere. When we ask children in primary school, they understand that, if we were to switch off storm overflows tomorrow, the sewage and all the waste would come up in their homes. The idea that we should switch those off today and appease all our voters is ludicrous, because they will soon be arguing and chasing us down the street because of what we have done to their homes.
Let me give an example. In Cornwall, in order to reduce storm overflows, septic tanks could not be emptied last year. That meant care homes, private homes and businesses could not clean out their septic tanks. It was havoc. It was driven by the need to clean up what we put on our land, which I support, and by the need to reduce storm overflows, which I also support, but it was done in a way that did not understand what the immediate implications would be. It was a massive problem. Following a lot of pressure from MPs, the Environment Agency adjusted the advice to allow us to get round that. As a result, South West Water is building in massive capacity—treatment plants to store this stuff in times of high waterfall. We need to be careful that what we ask for does not create alternative consequences that we would not want in our own homes and the homes of our constituents.
However, this is not about Government doing nothing. I have had conversations with the Minister about this going back many years. Today, because of her actions and the actions of others, £50 million is being spent on the Isles of Scilly alone to clean up the water that people drink and how the sewage is treated and then put into the sea. That money is being spent because the Government forced that to happen and ensured that it happened. I have had money spent in St Ives, Carbis Bay and St Erth—a massive amount of money has been spent in St Erth where the treatment plant is—Mousehole, Newland and Porthleven. My experience as an MP is that, when we engage constructively with Ministers and the water companies, we can get these things done and done quickly—or at least more quickly than was happening previously.
I find this whole debate infuriating because it fails to take broader responsibility on the question of how we communicate with our constituents about their water use, how we make sure that councils reduce the run-off into combined sewage systems, and how we work with farmers to understand how we can plough differently to stop water pouring into the water systems. This is not just about beating up water companies, on which the Government introduced regulation to correct the problem as soon as we can.

Liz Twist: Having discarded my carefully crafted speech, I will make just a few key points.
I think the Secretary of State fails to understand just how strongly our constituents feel about the issue of pollution in our waterways. It is one of the key issues that my constituents talk to me about and not just now—they have been doing so for a while. In April 2021, I had a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue as a result of that pressure from constituents, so this has been a consistent theme. That was followed by the many debates we had during the progress of the Environment Bill on the extent of action that should be taken on the issue, and we know how much public interest there was on the issue.
As co-chair of the all-party water group, I have the chance to speak regularly to water companies—not just my own—and to the regulators to find out what is happening, so I know about the changes that are being proposed. And that is as far as it goes. This morning, we had a presentation from David Black, the chief executive of Ofwat, explaining the current framework. But the fact is that the regulators—both the financial regulators of water, Ofwat, and the environmental regulators—are guided by Government action and Government decisions. Frankly, I do not believe we are going far enough or fast enough in resolving the issue of combined sewer overflows. How can it be right that there are another 27 years to go before we actually reach a stage where we have resolved the problem? Therefore, I think the Government plans are lacking ambition and should go further.
In the end, it is the Government who set the parameters of regulation and the fact is, as I have said, that they lack ambition. Our constituents want to see improvement much earlier than is being proposed. They want to be able to bathe in rivers and seas without fearing that they will be contaminated by sewage overflow and effluent. That is why I support Labour’s plan to act much more swiftly and to end this scandal of sewage discharges into rivers and seas. I hope the Government will step up their action to make sure that the scandal ends.

Duncan Baker: We are here today thanks to the work of the Environmental Audit Committee—work that was largely led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who is not in his place at the moment, and who is far too modest to take a lot of the plaudits for why we are here now.
Constituents talk to me about sewage dumping in the sea. Nine out of 10 times I am challenged, they have not been given the proper information, I am sad to say. What has been pumped out to them is largely disingenuous and a mischaracterisation of what is a deeply serious issue. After the recent weeks of gutter politics from the Opposition, it seems that they have not changed their spots today. In many cases, it is dangerous for MPs to have some of these accusations levelled at them. What we should be doing today is being responsible and showing what the Government really have done.
I say as a member of the EAC that it was our work that brought to the Government’s attention the appalling conduct of the water companies and the lackadaisical behaviour of the Environment Agency. Our work largely  led to the strengthening of the Environment Act and what we have today—all courtesy of the water quality in rivers inquiry inspired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow.
Of course CSOs must be phased out, but we simply cannot do that overnight, not unless we want to see rainwater and sewage mixed together coming up through our Victorian network into our homes and streets. However, the fact is that we did not know what was happening with any great visibility until the EAC shone a light on it. Our job in this House is to be responsible legislators. We cannot vote for unworkable pieces of law, and the Duke of Wellington amendment that led to this whole debate was unworkable. We cannot turn off CSOs after heavy rainfall tomorrow—that is not feasible—but what is feasible is the plan of action we have now.
In my constituency, we have been responsible. Anglian Water is investing £30 million in infrastructure to improve sites across my region, including dealing with sewage outflows. The responsible actions of this Government put us well ahead of many countries across the world, including, in Europe, France and Germany.
If there is one statistic I could leave the Labour party with, it would be that it is a Conservative Government who have increased the percentage of bathing waters classified as good or excellent from 76% in 2010 to 93% in 2022. That is a record of serious improvement and the new plan for water that we have set out is a serious step forward in tackling this problem.

Rosie Duffield: To be frank, for the past three or four years, my team and I have had to discuss excrement on an almost daily basis. It is the stuff ruining the lives of my constituents in Whitstable.
In a coastal town such as ours, so much revolves around the sea: our sailing clubs, seafood and hospitality businesses, and our reputation as a top British tourist destination. Whitstable is always thriving, busy with dog walkers, boats coming and going and visitors enjoying a pint at the Neptune or a tub of locally caught whelks with their chips, but there are days when regular swimmers and sailors cannot enjoy our waters at all, something we see far too often.
So-called rare storm events are not that at all. We have not had any storms, yet Southern Water has again been releasing sewage water into the sea for 24 hours straight this weekend—why? Whitstable is still a great place to visit, but while these incidents keep happening, there is a real danger to UK tourism, which has already suffered a great hit to visitor numbers since Brexit. French schoolchildren, who did not previously require a passport, are no longer flocking to Canterbury’s market stalls or studying at our language schools. We simply cannot afford the added damage that the headlines about sewage are doing to our economy.
However, it seems that not everyone is suffering. Those at the top of the water companies can probably afford to holiday elsewhere, while my constituents, whose incomes have taken a considerable hit, are expected to pay their water bills in full. It is little wonder that many are really angry about this. SOS Whitstable is a campaign group that was formed following a public meeting I held in the summer of 2021 so that residents could directly confront the bosses of Southern Water. It is a group of  very driven and knowledgeable campaigners who give their time for free, holding the water company to account and refusing to let it get away with dumping sewage on our beaches.
SOS Whitstable recently appeared in Paul Whitehouse’s excellent, must-watch BBC documentary “Our Troubled Rivers”. I urge anyone who wants to understand more about this situation to watch it on catch-up. SOS also started a petition, recently handed in to No. 10, calling on the Government to reconsider renationalising the water industry.
I have asked three Secretaries of State to visit our town and hear from residents about exactly how they are affected. I say to the current Secretary of State, “Please come and take me up on that offer and listen to our sailors, our swimmers and our tourist businesses.”

Cherilyn Mackrory: Most colleagues on the Government Benches, myself included, have had a fair bit of what I like to call online sewage since the landmark Environment Act 2021 was passed, not least since the Duke of Wellington’s amendment was discussed in this House. I must say that Opposition parties like to talk the talk, but they are not walking the walk, as this Government are doing.
I served on the Bill Committee for the 2021 Act, and I was proud to do so, because it was a landmark piece of legislation and the first time any Government were tackling the problem. The Opposition Members on that Bill Committee did not say anything like the things they like to say in the Chamber. They were constructive and we all came together as a good Bill Committee should to try to make the best possible piece of legislation, which we did.
Speaking as someone who likes to swim in the sea and has done so since I was a kid, I know that anyone else who grew up near the sea will remember—if they are truthful—that they will have swum past, I am sorry to say, tampons, sanitary towels and actual faeces in the water. It was not just in Cornwall; I grew up in the north-east, off Scarborough, and it was happening there as well.
Some of the surfers in Cornwall joke that in the 1970s they would go to the toilet at the top of their village and watch it come out through the sewerage when they got down to the bottom—and that is not a lie; it actually happened. To say that this is a Tory sewage crisis is absolutely ridiculous. This is a Tory sewage solution. We are finally grasping this problem and getting to the nub of it.
Last October in St Agnes, there was a big run-off that was videoed and made national headlines. It looked awful. We learned that it was run-off; we have to believe that, because that is what South West Water and the Environment Agency say, but my constituents are convinced it was more than that, because of the smell that they smelled. I ask the Secretary of State: can we have better and faster testing for those overflows when we are not sure what is happening? If we knew what was in the water, we could have a more positive campaign by local authorities and water companies to say, “This water is now safe to swim in and you will not get ill from it.” I hope the work we are doing now will lead to that.
South West Water is doing a lot of work around the Fal, including at the Falmouth sewage treatment works, Old Hill, 24 North Parade and Prince of Wales Pier. Some £13.2 million will be spent by 2025 and £40 million by 2030. South West Water is a one-star company that needs to get back to being a four-star company; it is starting to do the work, but there is much more to do. If I may make one final plea to the Secretary of State, when the consultation has finished, can we ensure that the fines imposed on water companies go back into fixing these problems? That will help us along the way.

Cat Smith: Last year in my constituency there were 685 sewage spills, the total duration of which came to more than 2,000 hours. Needless to say, my constituents have noticed them.
I was recently contacted by 85 year 5 pupils from Moorside Primary School in Lancaster who are particularly concerned about pollution in Lake Windermere and the impact it is having on wildlife and the environment. I want to give a voice to those young constituents of mine today. One pupil, Karina, says that it feels as if
“the lake is no longer a tranquil body of water it is just a mass of raw grotesque sewage”.
They inform me that the Ambleside treatment works is built for 5,000 people, even though millions visit the area every single year. They worry that the situation is getting worse and highlight the fact that in 2016 there were around 100,000 hours of spills by water companies in England, but by 2021 that had increased to 2.5 million.
My constituents are troubled by the impact on local wildlife, especially the number of dead fish that have been seen in the area and the knock-on impact that will have on birds such as kingfishers. My young constituents are angry about the £600 million in profits made by United Utilities, which they feel should be spent on addressing sewage spills in Lake Windermere. They accept that United Utilities is investing £40 million in trying to address some of the problems, but, as James from year 5 perceptively highlights,
“intelligent people know that they could be investing a lot more”,
especially given their profits, and Anya says it is “too little too late”.
The pupils highlight that the spills do not only affect animals; while they are worried for their pets, especially the dogs who wade in Lake Windermere, they are also worried about the impact on people. As Freya highlights,
“innocent little children who go paddling in the sewage filled lake could end up becoming sick and have diarrhoea and end up going to hospital”.
Evie asks:
“Is it acceptable to put raw sewage into our lakes…or should the government put a stop it to it?”
My view is that the Government should put a stop to it, and I would be grateful if the Minister answered Evie’s question in her response.
No one should have to worry about whether they can enjoy areas of outstanding natural beauty or whether they will encounter raw sewage by taking a dip in our waters. No business should have to worry about Tory-sanctioned sewage dumping impacting their trade. If Tory MPs fail to support today’s motion, they will be voting again to continue dumping sewage, and it is clear from the letters I have received from more 80 children in my constituency that they can see that that would stink.

Tom Randall: Gedling’s southern border is the River Trent between Colwick and Burton Joyce. It is popular with boaters, walkers and fishermen and is probably one of the prettiest parts of my constituency. With other parts such as Gedling village, which has the Ouse Dyke running through it, it makes Gedling a great place to live. There is a legitimate public concern about the quality of the water in those places, a concern that I share.
Listening to some of the debate, one might think that no sewage was ever dumped in a river before 2010, which, of course, is not the case. The problems that we are dealing with are a legacy of a combined Victorian sewer system that carries both waste and surface run-off. Indeed, while researching a completely unrelated subject recently, I came across an article in The Times from 20 April 1923. It contains a Ministry of Agriculture circular about pollution that says:
“In this country, except in special localities, the most usual kind of pollution is sewage in bulk so great that it de-oxygenates the water and so suffocates the fish.”
Fortunately, our river quality has moved on quite a way since then. Certainly, in Colwick—just a couple of hundred yards beyond the boundary of my constituency—they are building a new salmon fish pass because of the increased number of salmon in the River Trent, which is a good sign. However, I acknowledge that there is a serious problem to solve, so I welcome the storm overflows discharge reduction plan and the plan for water, which will deliver £56 billion-worth of investment to reduce storm overflows, prosecute polluting water companies, and introduce unlimited fines and increased and better monitoring.
I understand that there will be concern about whether that change is happening fast enough—many will feel that it is not—but government is about making difficult choices. We could stop storm overflows tomorrow by stopping surface run-off, but I understand that doing so would make 140,000 homes in the Severn Trent Water region liable to flooding, which would be unacceptable. We have also heard about introducing uncosted measures. Those could triple the cost of a water bill, which, given the cost of living issues that we face at the moment, would be equally unacceptable.
I am not prepared to back motions that would increase water bills at this difficult time or cause such unconscionable consequences. We have a detailed and costed plan that will make a difference to the quality of our water, and we should stick with it.

Navendu Mishra: The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) —my Greater Manchester neighbours—made powerful contributions highlighting the important issues that we face in Greater Manchester.
According to Environment Agency data from last year, United Utilities—the water company that covers the north-west of England—was the most polluting water company of them all. Despite that, the outgoing chief executive made £1.4 million from the sale of shares in the business. That goes to the heart of the  problem: if the Government do not hold private water companies to account with existing legislation and by creating new mechanisms to do so, they are rewarding catastrophic environmental damage. How is it that since privatisation, water bills have risen by 40% while £72 billion has gone to private water company shareholders?
Indeed, much-needed investment in infrastructure has fallen by 15%. According to the Financial Times, English water companies leak about 20% of water supply, compared with just 5% in Germany. United Utilities and Yorkshire Water alone were responsible for 124,000 of the sewage spills by water companies in England last year, accounting for 40% of the total number recorded. In reality, private water companies are simply allowed to get away with it because of a combination of a lack of ambition and the deliberate defunding of the Environment Agency, as the Conservatives have done with other public bodies.
In August last year, the Government published their storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which requires water companies to reduce discharges into designated bathing water and high-priority nature sites. Yet there is one glaring omission. Where is the plan to eliminate sewage dumping into our natural environment, and why should our constituents have to reach further into their pockets to cover rising bills when the rule-breaking bosses should pay the price?
Last year, the River Mersey, which runs through my constituency, had waste dumped in it almost 1,000 times, triggering an inquiry from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. It was reported only last week that plans to plant a new woodland in Stockport borough were cancelled after it was discovered that a field was so saturated with sewage that the soil could be too toxic for the trees. In March, the Industry and Regulatory Committee’s report on the water industry found that
“Ofwat and the Environment Agency must go further to hold water companies to account for pollution.”
It further stated that the Government must ensure that “adequate funding” is available. But that, again, is part of the problem. According to analysis by the Prospect trade union, the Government’s grant for environmental protection is currently 56% lower in real terms than in 2009-10.
Without enforcement, water companies are allowed to self-report breaches of permits that allow them to release raw sewage in exceptional circumstances via storm overflows, but evidence suggests that water firms are responsible for 10 times more sewage-dumping than they disclose. We have seen consistent rule-breaking, increased risk to public health, our leisure sites polluted and the undermining of Ofwat and the Environment Agency. The Labour party has a plan to tackle that head-on—why do the Government not have a plan?

Stephen Crabb: I support ambitious targets for reducing sewage discharges; I support stronger regulation of the water companies; I support stricter enforcement and penalties for water companies found guilty of discharging sewage into our waterways. That is why I support the Government’s very clear and practical plan, which sets us on a course to achieve all those aims.
This issue matters to me and to my constituents in coastal Pembrokeshire. During the course of 2021, my constituency had 79,000 hours of sewage discharged. That is completely unacceptable, and local people in Pembrokeshire feel angry about it. Who is responsible for water policy in Wales and for reducing sewage discharge through legislation and regulation? As we have heard, it is the Welsh Government, through Natural Resources Wales.
It is dismaying that this important issue, which should be tackled on a pragmatic cross-party basis, has been reduced again to a political football. We know that it is a political football because Labour has been briefing the media. I read in the newspaper this morning that it is part of a plan for Labour’s local election strategy. It has nothing to do with tackling the environmental problems in our constituencies; it is a clever wheeze—or, at least, Labour thinks it is clever—to get a few more votes at the local elections.
That does a huge disservice to the campaigners in our constituencies who have taken the time to write and talk to us about these issues over recent years—and not just in recent years. Surfers Against Sewage has had a presence in my constituency for 30 years and has been talking about this for decades. It is a healthy thing that this matter is now right at the top of the political agenda. It is thanks to the hard work of a lot of grassroots campaigners that we have got to this point.
I will not go into too much more detail about the situation in Wales, but suffice it to say that when we had a debate about this matter last year, the Welsh Government—who are normally very keen for everyone to be aware of the issues and policy areas that they are responsible for—kept their heads way down. They did not want people in Wales to know that they have legislative responsibility for water policy in Wales.
I wrote to the Minister to ask the Welsh Government what the plan is. We know what the UK Government’s plan is for England, but where is the plan for Wales? I got a letter back saying that:
“Replacing all the existing CSOs would be a long-term multi billion pound project, be very carbon intensive and take many years. Instead, the Welsh Government is looking at nature solutions.”
It also said that they do not feel it necessary to
“replicate the approach being taken in England.”
Yet the motion before us suggests that that is Labour policy. It should not be. We need a better approach.

Claudia Webbe: The water industry is a classic illustration of the harms of privatisation and the contradiction of a Government who claim that privatisation is more efficient while giving companies free rein to profit by damaging the environment.
In 2021, Severn Trent Water—the water company in my constituency—was fined £1 million for a 2018 raw sewage discharge that lasted for hours, and £500,000 for a separate incident. In the previous year, the firm had been fined £800,000 for similar issues. By 2020 and 2021, Severn Trent Water had discharged untreated sewage into our waterways and seas 60,000 times, with an average duration of almost 10 hours per incident. Despite that, the company boasted that it had received the Government’s highest four-star rating.  Incredibly, Severn Trent’s chief executive is now advising the Government on water, waste discharges and biodiversity.
At the same time as it pollutes, Severn Trent is paying out huge dividends to shareholders, including a recent payout of 43p per share on more than 254 million shares—more than £109 million to wealthy investors. It pays out dividends twice a year. Severn Trent Water was only the third worst offender in England among water companies. According to the most recent DEFRA data, there were more than 370,000 sewage discharges a year, but fines are rarely imposed. The foxes are running the chicken coop. The Government described Severn Trent’s actions as “completely unacceptable”, but they reward it for its recklessness.
It is evident from those figures that the privatisation of the UK’s water supply is a disaster for our people, who pay a heavy price financially and in quality of life, and for nature and our environment. It is a disaster for everyone, in fact, apart from the water companies and their investors, who make millions while they pollute. It is clear that the only real solution to this situation is full renationalisation so that those who are running services are accountable and any surpluses can drive reinvestment and lower bills, instead of fattening corporate profits and offshore bank accounts.

Anthony Mangnall: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The Opposition have attempted to pretend that the Government do not care about sewage, or about water companies being held to account, and yet in every instance, in every debate, and with every measure that we have introduced, we have shown that we care about the quality of water in our rivers and on our coastline, that we care about bathing-water status and, above all, that we care about holding water companies to account. This is not a moment to say, “Job done. Well done. Move on to the next issue.” It is a continuing, rolling issue that we have to address to provide reassurance to constituents and ensure that they have a reassured view of water companies.
All the measures that we have introduced to date have put in place exactly what the Opposition propose in the Bill they want to introduce. They talk about dividend payments—those are already restricted by Ofwat’s new measures. They talk about a new regulator—a costly thing to try to change—yet we have given Ofwat the teeth to take action against water companies that fail to deliver. We have implemented the ability to impose criminal fines and to put directors and CEOs in jail if they do not deliver. We have also offered the opportunity to impose unlimited fines on water companies under the “polluter pays” principle. The Opposition say that we take no action, yet we have proven legislative delivery that is already having an impact and being implemented across our constituencies. The £56 billion investment that we have asked for requires the water companies to take action, rather than putting the costs on our constituents at a difficult time. That is a balanced approach that will enable us to deliver and clean up our waterways, ensuring better biodiversity and even more areas with bathing-water status.
It is extremely easy for the Opposition to pat themselves on the back about 2009 and 2010, when there were limited monitoring systems across the United Kingdom.  Now there is 90% monitoring—set to be 100% by the end of the year—and we can point to the problem and to the solutions, and show that we are delivering them. That is exactly what the Government are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) said that this is a Tory solution to the sewage problem, and we should be proud of that.
I have taken South West Water to task, and I will continue to do so. It has a lot more to do to regain the confidence of the British public, especially in the south-west. I have taken its officials to do town halls in Brixham. This Thursday, I will take them to Totnes—I will let the House know how I get on—to talk about what is being done in the local area, to try to rebuild confidence, to show that work has been done. I have to say, however, that when we politicise this issue we do so to our detriment, because there is a proud record to show.

Rachel Hopkins: We have the shameful situation where not one English river is classed as being in a healthy condition, none of them meets good chemical standards, and few meet good ecological standards. Many colleagues represent constituencies that have been impacted more seriously by the mismanagement of our waterways, but still, in Luton South, there were 12 spills totalling nine hours last year.
In Luton, we are particularly proud to have the River Lea, a chalk stream which rises in the neighbouring constituency of Luton North and flows all the way through Luton South, ultimately to the River Thames. Chalk streams provide pure, clear, constant water from underground chalk aquifers and springs. Eighty-five per cent. of the world’s chalk streams are in England, and they are one of the planet’s rarest habitats. They are vulnerable to drought, as we heard, as illustrated by the 2019 drought, which dried out 67% of chalk streams in the Chilterns. We therefore need the Government to commit to protecting the future of chalk streams.
Sadly, the Conservatives’ record on water quality more widely is one of polluted waters and open spaces. Since 2016, 1,276 years’-worth of raw sewage has been dumped in British waters. In 2022 alone, there were 824 sewage dumps a day across the country. Despite representing a landlocked constituency many miles from the sea, I know how important our coast is to many in our Luton community. Not everyone has the means to holiday abroad, and for many families a trip to the seaside is the highlight of their summer. Every child deserves to be able to enjoy playing on the beach, paddling in the sea, safe from harm, so the Government cannot shirk responsibility for this failure.
During the passage of the Environment Act 2021, Conservative MPs had the opportunity to support a Labour-backed amendment that would have brought an end to sewage dumping. However, instead of putting the country and our communities first, Conservative MPs walked through the Lobby to block those changes and voted to continue the Tory sewage scandal. That is despite the consequences for our environment, for public health and for businesses that rely on the beauty and nature of Britain to attract visitors and thrive.
Not only have the Conservatives given the green light to water companies to dump sewage and neglect our vital water infrastructure, but they have rewarded them for it. Shareholders are walking away with billions in dividends, with bumper bonuses for negligent water bosses. Thirteen years of Tory Government have taken our country backwards, allowing it to be treated like an open sewer. I urge all Members to support Labour’s water quality Bill, particularly those who say that it is already happening. They should back the Bill, as we need four extra reduction measures, with no extra burden on household bills, but I fear that yet again we will see Tory Members walk through the Lobby to block these changes and continue the Tory sewage scandal.

Sally-Ann Hart: I stand with the people of beautiful Hastings and Rye, who are all quite rightly angry about the extent of water companies’ excessive use of overflows. Only the Conservatives have come up with a proper, fully costed plan, and I am proud of and support the work that the Government are doing to deal with this issue, as well as the work that I do engaging with Southern Water and my constituents, to improve water quality and resources locally and to reduce sewage flooding.
I am somewhat bemused that the Opposition have tabled the motion for debate. They are far behind the narrative in trying to secure targets for sewage discharges and protect water quality. I want to express my deep disappointment in Labour and its leadership. I thought the days of Momentum and its dirty, dangerous and polarising politics had disappeared with the election of a leader who, from the outset, seemed to be someone with a plan, with integrity. However, recent weeks in particular have shown that Corbynism and Momentum politics have not disappeared. We have seen personal, misinformed attacks on the Prime Minister. We have seen personal, misinformed attacks on many Conservative MPs about sewage discharges, to the extent that many colleagues live in fear for themselves and their families. I thought that we were all trying to work together to bring the political debate back to more polite, constructive and sensible discourse, to help to reduce the horrendous abuse with which many MPs struggle on a daily basis. I was wrong.
Only this morning, I read an article in The Guardian that began:
“Labour to use tactic that finished off Truss to force Tories into sewage vote”.
That message was spread on social media by Opposition supporters, including a former popstar who has new-found fame attacking Conservative MPs about a subject they all seem to know little about.
This is all about politicking for Labour. Its tactics smack of desperation. It does not care about sewage issues, because if it did, Wales under the Labour-controlled Senedd would have a world-class water and sewerage system. It does not. Labour has been responsible in Wales for 23 years, and Wales has almost twice the amount of sewage discharges that England does.
This Conservative Government are the first UK Government to instruct water companies to prioritise the environment, both by imposing new legal duties on water companies under our landmark Environment  Act 2021, and by giving new powers to Ofwat. This is the Government who will sort out water companies, and I stand by the measures that they take.

Luke Pollard: Raw sewage is the perfect metaphor for 13 years of Tory Britain. It is hard to find an NHS dentist or get a GP appointment, and it is hard to get a passport or find a lettuce or a tomato in a supermarket, but we can go for a swim among human waste, faeces, nappies and used condoms in our lakes, rivers and seas. Britain deserves so much better than this.
There were more than 37,000 sewage spills in the south-west last year. In Plymouth alone, there were more than 2,000, an average of five spills every single day—that means that it is only 1,220 sewage spills until Christmas for us Janners—so why has South West Water been let off the hook? It is failing as a company to close down the raw sewage outlets that we need it to close in order to have a protected and safe region. In Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, there have been 8,750 hours of dumping from 1,574 spills. In Plymouth, Moor View, there have been 4,000 hours from 540 spills, with more in South West Devon and in Torridge and West Devon, whose rivers flow past Plymouth. It is not good enough.
Clean water matters to me—it mattered to me when I spoke from the Front Bench, and it matters to me when I speak now. In 2017, I proposed that Plymouth sound be designated as the UK’s first ever national marine park. In 2019, we achieved that status, and thanks to £10 million of heritage lottery money, we are improving access to the water, celebrating Plymouth’s maritime history and cleaning up our waters. For the past year, I have been campaigning for Devil’s Point and Firestone bay to be designated as an official bathing water, with regular water testing so that people like me who swim in that part of Plymouth sound can see what we are swimming in. I am grateful to Ministers for agreeing to the campaign; that status starts in only a few weeks’ time.
The truth is that ending the sewage scandal is in the Government’s hands. They can mandate investment in closing raw sewage outlets in water company business plans. They can introduce automatic fines for sewage dumping. They can introduce mandatory monitoring for all sewage outlets and make sure each one of those monitors is working. They can introduce legally binding targets to end 90% of raw sewage discharges by 2030, and they can prioritise rivers and sewage in the next set of business plans. But they could do more: they could introduce more stormwater retention tanks, automatic fines and real-time data so that we can see what is happening, and they could close the gap between a spill and a fine that currently takes many years to deliver. I would also like to see more of the money from fines go to improve our environment. Higher-level fines nearly all go to the Treasury: we need more going to our environment to improve it along the way.

Ben Spencer: I think we can all agree that sewage flooding is revolting. Few people know this better than my constituents in Thorpe, who have already experienced it twice this year in their gardens and homes, yet what Labour and the Lib Dems fail to mention is that if we were to simply  click our fingers and ban sewage overflows into rivers, the result would be many more households experiencing sewage flooding as it backed up into their homes at times of flooding or heavy rainfall.
No one wants sewage overflowing into our rivers, either, and it is clear that there has been a lack of investment in sewage infrastructure over decades, which has led to this situation. However, rather than knee-jerk reactions and uncosted plans aimed at political campaigning and PR, we believe in working towards long-term solutions to protect our rivers. That is why we passed the Environment Act 2021, which introduced new targets and measures to require water companies to take action. It is why we are legislating to enshrine those targets in law, ensuring that they are deliverable and cost-effective for bill payers.
That belief is why I work closely with Thames Water and the Environment Agency to address flooding and water quality issues in Runnymede and Weybridge. It is why I press for infrastructure investment to prioritise high-use areas such as mine, so that we can deliver improvements for the maximum number of people as soon as possible. It is why I visited local sewage treatment works and pressed for modernisation that would reduce local sewage overflows, and it is why I support the £500 million—of which £250 million is coming from the Government and £250 million is coming from Surrey County Council—going towards the River Thames scheme, which will protect thousands of homes and businesses locally from flooding. It is why I will continue to campaign for practical, affordable solutions based on the needs and experiences of residents in Runnymede and Weybridge.
Opposition proposals during the passage of the Environment Act would have cost between £150 billion and £600 billion, and even then, achieving the improvements that were being promised might have proven impossible. Do Opposition Members really believe that headlines today are worth thousands of pounds in household bills each year? Do they really want to stop overflows and instead flood people’s homes, or will they finally put sound financial planning, sustainability and affordability above spin, and support our plans to improve water quality without the awful consequences for residents that their plans would cause?

Rebecca Long-Bailey: According to the Rivers Trust, in Salford alone, our waterways have been littered with thousands of hours-worth of sewage discharges in 2022, and it will take more than the Government’s fluffy and toothless targets to fix the problem. The water industry has been regulated ever since it was privatised in 1989, and fining many water companies millions of pounds has demonstrably not affected their behaviour. Certain water companies have actually tried to claim in court that they are not public authorities and should not have to publish data on sewage, and years of chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and inaction by the regulator, Ofwat, have meant that there has been an inability to enforce even the minimal regulation that is available to us in this country.
It is left to individuals and organisations to try to enforce those regulations, but even when they do, they are met with hurdles. Indeed, United Utilities sought a declaration that would effectively bar people from bringing private claims against water companies that dump sewage  into rivers and seas, and it won its case in the Court of Appeal most recently. That has meant that any water company can effectively dump sewage into waterways in England and Wales without fear of being sued in the civil courts by landowners, angling clubs, swimming clubs, wildlife groups, residents, or any other group with an interest in the land. As such, action is needed, and the plan described by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) is sensible and effective. I hope the whole House will support his motion today.
Beyond that, I urge all colleagues to examine the bigger picture as to why we are in the situation we are in today, and how we can ensure long-term sustainability of the water sector. Privatisation has meant that water bills have increased by 40% in real terms. We have seen £72 billion paid out in dividends to shareholders since privatisation, almost half as much as the money the sector has spent on upgrading and maintaining water and sewerage systems. The galling fact is that the private sector paid very little for the companies when it took them on in 1989, and the truth is that privatisation of our water industry was wrong—it has been a complete failure for the British public. If we are serious about tackling this ecological disaster, we need to support the Opposition’s motion today, but ultimately, we need to have a serious discussion about bringing our water industry into public ownership for the public good.

Gagan Mohindra: I have previously spoken in this House about my beautiful constituency of South West Hertfordshire. We have the River Chess, the Aquadrome and the Grand Union canal, and we are very fortunate to have those beautiful waterways in our constituency.
Many constituents have contacted me about this particular issue. Politics being politics, the Opposition have used it as a bit of a political football: Members on the Government Benches will remember the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, and how we were pilloried for doing what we thought was best by not agreeing to bankrupt water companies up and down the country, but instead supporting a viable plan. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to make sure that any laws we create are enforceable and implementable. More locally in South West Hertfordshire, I have held regular meetings with Thames Water, which the Government have fined extensively for its discharge of sewage—over £35 million between 2010 and 2023. I continue to make visits to both Maple Lodge sewage treatment works and the one in Aylesbury, which feeds into my constituency.
My residents are rightly angry: they look at this issue and the headlines at a glance, and it is easy to understand why. The Victorian drainage system, as many colleagues have mentioned, is one of the key issues that we need to sort out, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said earlier, the reason we allow discharge in the first place is to prevent discharge from coming up through people’s toilets and into their homes, because that is even worse, unfortunately, than the damage caused by discharge into our rivers. We need to upgrade the waterways, and we will do so. We have a viable water plan put forward by this Government,  which I continue to fully support, because the alternative proposed by Labour at the time was a £21,000 bill per household.
The second debate today will be on the cost of living. When the Secretary of State was in her place, she referred to the hypocrisy—or the irony—of the fact that on the one hand we are talking about increasing household bills and then later today we will be discussing how to support our local residents. We must continue to be honest with our constituents. Unfortunately, we sometimes need to be bearers of bad news, but we also have to be transparent. In my eyes, we should be saying, “These are the things that realistically we can implement.” The water plan put forward by the Government is very much that. The Opposition have spoken about increasing numbers of sewage releases, but a lot of that is down to increased and better recording. We should not shy away from the fact that we have better data.
I will finish there, because I am conscious of time. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will continue to support my residents on this important issue.

Paula Barker: The River Mersey in the great north-west of England meanders through the heart of the region and connects the great cities of Manchester and Liverpool. For centuries, it was the boundary between the historic counties of Lancashire and Cheshire. I pay tribute to the likes of the Mersey Rivers Trust, which has done so much for so long in the fight to clean up the Mersey. In our part of the world, we take our obligations to look after the Mersey extremely seriously. Recently, our Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram announced plans to make the river sewage-free by 2030. Those plans were backed by Lord Heseltine, who helped first establish the Mersey basin campaign partnership nearly 40 years ago. They both recognised that when it comes to the Mersey, there is no room for complacency.
Growing up in Liverpool, my generation and the one before it saw the toll taken on the river and its estuary, yet the bold action set out by our Metro Mayor risks being undermined by those on the Government Benches if they do not urgently get a grip of the issue of sewage being dumped time and time again into our waterways. The excellent reporting by Danny Rigg at the Liverpool Echo has stated the scale of the problem. Sewage flowed into Merseyside rivers for more than 17,000 hours from 10 wastewater treatment sites in 2020, and raw sewage flowed into the river for 11,000 hours from just five Wirral locations upstream of New Brighton in 2021. It was remarked on by the reporter that that was more than the number of hours in the entire year.
This modern Conservative party might not value our natural habitats, our precious waterways and our coastal communities, but the British people do. After all, it was this Conservative party that went out of its way to block Labour amendments to the Environment Act 2021 that would have bought an end to this practice. Rather than stand by communities, the Conservatives stood idly by, letting shareholders walk away with billions in dividends and allowing bumper bonuses for water bosses. Those on the Government Benches were belligerent in striking down the Opposition amendments, yet here we are. The Secretary of State is late to the party, no doubt  after her inbox and those of other Government Members filled up with emails from angry constituents wondering why they have consistently refused to stand up for them. It is too little, too late. I am proud that cleaning up our waterways, our rivers and our seas, taking on the water companies for their negligence and supporting our people are priorities for this Opposition. We will take action on these things in government.

Selaine Saxby: I am perplexed as to why we need another Bill on this topic, particularly when it is uncosted and would result in a threefold increase in water bills and when we already have the epic Environment Act 2021. What we really need to do is implement what is in that Act. While I fully accept that far more needs to be done, particularly on what is running into our rivers, we also need to acknowledge where progress has been made, especially when our vital tourism economy is so reliant on the quality of our water.
South West Water is responsible for 34% of all our bathing waters and for 10 million visitors to that region. We have 100% of those bathing waters now at bathing water quality, up from 90% in 2010. In my beautiful North Devon constituency, I have nine designated bathing waters, all of which are good or excellent. We have already seen a 50% reduction in bathing season storm overflows and a 75% reduction in the duration of spills. The investment by South West Water in the fantastic surf beach of Croyde has now seen its bathing quality rise from good to excellent. Anyone familiar with North Devon’s beautiful beaches knows how much better water quality is compared with 20 to 30 years ago.
Only 1% of the water pollution we are dealing with is sewage. More than 95% of our storm overflow discharge is rainwater. Anyone watching South West Water’s new WaterFit Live app will note that the overflows run after extensive rain, which is completely different from raw sewage being dumped on the beaches, particularly when the alternative is that it gets washed up into people’s front rooms. It is only because we are now monitoring the situation that we know what is going on.
The crystal clear waters of North Devon are beckoning. We have the first cold-water surf reserve in the world and the first UNESCO biosphere reserve. We pride ourselves on our waters. Indeed, people should come wild swimming in my patch. They will see dolphins playing, and they might see mermaid purses on the beach. The sharks do go past—it is pretty wild out there. We have jellyfish, including ones the size of dustbin lids. With the changing climate, we occasionally get ones that sting these days. We have seals that like to play with the gig rowers. Because of the oars flapping in the water, they jump up to see people. It was a bit hairier than my normal surf companion when I caught one out on the beach.
I will be back in my waters this weekend, and I will be proud to be so. I hope that if people have not yet booked their summer holiday, they will consider coming to Croyde. On Friday, the Opposition spoke about the need to ensure that people can access our beaches. I was proud to be at the opening of the country’s first adaptive surf centre, and now everyone can access that beach, with its excellent water company.

Matt Rodda: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Before I start, I thank the Angling Trust, Surfers Against Sewage—I pay tribute to its work in coastal areas and inland—and many other groups that campaign on this important issue. I take this opportunity to talk about an unpleasant incident that happened in my constituency and neighbouring parts of Berkshire, which unfortunately illustrates the scale of the problem, the nature of what we are dealing with and, indeed, the need for urgent action—far more than has so far been committed to by the Government.
Earlier this month, there was a spill that lasted for 17 hours into a local brook called Foundry brook, sometimes known as Foudry brook, which feeds into the River Kennet, one of the main tributaries of the Thames. Ultimately, this sewage spill would have fed into the Thames at Reading and then gone onward to London. The spill happened in a beautiful rural setting of rolling countryside just outside Reading. It then passed the western edge of the town, went past the nature reserve, went through areas where people live nearby, with the backs of their gardens going down to the river, and went next to workplaces and right next to Green Park, which is a major science park in our area with thousands of employees who like to walk past the waterways. The spill carried on into the Kennet, went past County lock and into Reading town centre, through the area of the Oracle shopping centre and on past more terraced housing and more flats to Kennetmouth, where the Kennet joins the Thames. Ultimately, this dreadful slick would have continued through the rest of the Thames valley and into the sea. That is an appalling abuse that residents and people working nearby should not have to put up with. It is simply not acceptable that this type of pollution takes places in the 21st century.
I was near to Foundry brook a few weeks ago—it may have been at the time of the incident or slightly before—when I was getting ready to run the Reading half marathon. I could see and smell the water, and it really was unpleasant—that is the polite way to put it. It was deeply unpleasant. There was an awful smell and a strange tinge to the water. It did not look natural or right, despite the setting with beautiful willow trees, pollarded like something out of “The Wind in the Willows”, next to the waterway. We are talking about disgusting pollution, and there should be urgent action to tackle it. That is just one example in one community.
I thought the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) spoke beautifully about her coastal community. Inland, we also have wonderful and beautiful waterways that are full of wildlife, with large birds such as swans, smaller ones such as ducks, large fish such as pike, and a range of other fish and animals. All of this is being affected, as is people’s enjoyment, by these terrible sewage incidents. They simply should not be happening. This is happening around the country—a range of constituencies have been referenced to this afternoon—and it simply should not be continuing. I do think there is a need for urgent action now. There needs to be a proper plan, with automatic fines.

Simon Baynes: I serve on the Welsh Affairs Committee, and we have had two evidence sessions discussing the situation with water companies  in Wales. I have therefore spent a great deal of time recently hearing about what is going on in Wales and, frankly, this afternoon there seems to be virtually no recognition from the Opposition that the Labour party has a big problem to answer for in Wales when it comes to water quality. We have established during this debate that the Welsh Government have legislative competence for all aspects of water quality, water resources and the water industry, so it is very much the Labour party’s responsibility in Wales.
I thought the speech by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) was powerful, and it held to account the problems with Dŵr Cymru or Welsh Water. Opposition Members have continually made the point about nationalisation—it goes down slightly different lines depending on whether they are Momentum or mainstream Labour Members. In effect, Dŵr Cymru is a not-for-profit organisation, so it is not putting money into the hands of shareholders, yet as the hon. Member said, it is a very poor performer. I think that is something the Opposition need to consider.
During the Welsh Affairs Committee review of the water industry in Wales, we were very concerned by the evidence we heard about the condition of Welsh rivers and coastal waters. I make no apology for highlighting Labour’s appalling performance in Wales on the water industry, and I will give one or two statistics in the time available. There were 83,000 spills in Wales in 2022. In England, there were 23 spills per overflow on average that year, whereas in Wales there were 38 spills per overflow on average, so the performance in Wales is distinctly poorer. The number of sewage spills in Wales accounted for 21% of all discharges across Wales and England, and the top two longest sewage discharges last year were in Wales—in Bridgend, which is the responsibility of Dŵr Cymru or Welsh Water. As we have heard, of the top five constituencies across the UK for hours of sewage discharge, three are in Wales: Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and Preseli Pembrokeshire.
These are damning statistics, and the point I make to the Opposition is that they should be honest enough to recognise that there is a major problem in the way that Labour runs the water industry in Wales.

Andrew Gwynne: It will come as no surprise to Members in the Chamber that I rise to support the Labour Front-Bench motion, because I support the Bill tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon).
The River Tame, which runs through my constituency, has the unfortunate honour of being one of the most polluted waterways in the UK. In detailed, peer-reviewed research, Professor Jamie Woodward and his team from the University of Manchester found that the Tame, which is one of two tributaries forming the River Mersey at Stockport, is heavily contaminated with microplastics, because untreated waste water and sewage are routinely discharged into the river when it is at low flow. Professor Woodward found concentrations of 130,000 microplastic particles per sediment on the riverbed around Denton. This is one of the few accessible green spaces in my constituency, and it is absolutely disgraceful.
In 2022, there were 11,000 hours of sewage discharge into the River Tame and the local environment by United Utilities. That pollution, and also the pollution from industrial processes along the river, is having a disastrous impact on the local environment. In a recent interview with Paul Whitehouse on the BBC, Chris Clarke, an angler who works closely with the Friends of the Tame Valley, told of his devastation as he watched raw sewage—not from a UU plant, but from a misconnection into Johnson brook—being pumped into the waterway on the same day that the Environment Agency was replenishing fish stocks.
Local people across my constituency are doing their very best to solve this problem. Groups such as the Friends of the Tame Valley, which I am incredibly proud to be a part of, often organise community riverbank cleans, but all too often it feels as though they are fighting an uphill battle. There has also been the formation of the River Tame working group. Spearheaded by the Mersey Rivers Trust, this brings together various community and corporate stakeholders, including United Utilities, to resolve the local operational issues and to help shape local catchment actions plans. In the interest of balance, I should say that UU is investing £100 million to immediately commence a further programme of works to reduce spill frequency at eight prioritised storm overflows, there are four river rangers and we are training a generation of river guardians.
In closing, in 2010 the Tory Prime Minister said that we are “all in it together”. I am sure he did not think that, 13 years later, that would mean the sewage in our rivers.

James Wild: I am pleased to speak in this debate to make it clear again that the use of storm overflows is unacceptable and needs to end. That is why I supported the Environment Act and new powers to require water companies to tackle this issue and for Ofwat to act, including where water companies seek to pay dividends when their environmental performance is not good enough.
North West Norfolk is home to many precious chalk streams, and one of my first visits as an MP was to walk the River Nar in Castle Acre with the Norfolk Rivers Trust, when we looked at work to restore part of the river to get it back to the natural widths, depths and gradients. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on chalk streams, I have consistently highlighted the unacceptable use of storm overflows and the need to protect these rivers.
However, let us be candid about what ending the use of overflows, as some pretend is possible, would mean. It would mean sewage backing up into people’s homes. Why do Labour and the Liberal Democrats not put that on their leaflets? Why are they not open with the public about the disgusting consequences of the proposals they have put forward? Rather than misleading claims, I am interested in practical action to make a difference, and that starts with overflows.
Looking at the motion, I wonder where Labour has been. We will have 100% of overflows monitored by the end of this year, and real-time data is coming. When Labour was last in government, the figure was 7%. Then there are fines and prosecutions. Having looked at this  area as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I want to see the Environment Agency take far more robust action. All major water companies are under investigation for illegal sewage discharges, and regulators must use higher fines to focus the minds of chief executives and boards, which is why I support unlimited fines.
The third element is investment. There is no cheap way to fix a Victorian system combining rainwater and wastewater. In my constituency, residents suffered sewage coming up through manhole covers and into their homes when there was severe flooding. By challenging Anglian Water, I got it to reline some of the sewer network because there was groundwater infiltration, rather than just inundation of rainwater. As a result, we will see improvements and hopefully we will not see a repetition. But we need major investment, which is why the £56 billion is going to be required.
The motion calls for an impact assessment. That has been done as required by the Environment Act 2021 and the results are not good for either party. Liberal Democrats pretend that they can solve this problem overnight, but that is just wholly impractical, and the Labour plan appears to involve spending £600 billion in seven years. As my constituents would say, “What a load of squit”. Instead, the Conservative party has a plan for 100% more monitoring, requiring record investment and using penalties to tackle this problem. Now water companies and regulators must be held to account to deliver real improvements for our constituents.

Matt Western: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). Let me start with some facts. In 2021, we saw a 67% increase in sewage discharges in my constituency across the River Leam and the River Avon. Of course these are discharges that are sanctioned by this Government. We have heard that there are now discharges every two and a half minutes. Let us also remember that the Conservative Government voted against the Duke of Wellington’s amendment 45 to the Environment Bill, which would have put a new duty on sewerage undertakers to improve the sewerage systems and to demonstrate progressive reductions in the harm caused by discharges of untreated sewage.
A year on, nothing has changed. The public are extremely disgusted by what they see and hear. In 2022, we had 824 sewage dumps a day across the country. Meanwhile, billions are being paid out in dividends, as we have heard, and the Severn Trent Water CEO’s pay is increasing by 25% to 27% locally. Not enough is being invested in the network, in sustainable drainage systems, or in greywater storage. One of the great hits to the situation was the change in the legislation on new builds and new housing—we have problems with rainwater runoff and the storage on those new developments has not been improved.
I am seeing and hearing real concerns from the community. I have had 52 letters from the public just in recent months. Concerns have been expressed by leisure users such as Warwick Sea Scouts, the Royal Leamington Spa Canoe Club and Warwick Boat Club, which has rowing teams using the lengths of the rivers. I have also heard from businesses, such as Warwick Boats and Leam Boat Centre, which I contacted and which told  me they are really concerned about damage to the river’s ecosystem and about public health. Of course, this has an impact on those businesses.
Let us not forget that this also impacts on wildlife. There is a desperate need to take remedial action and focus on river ecologies to protect and preserve plant and animal life. That is why Labour’s plan would impose automatic fines, set legal requirements for monitoring stations throughout our rivers and set legally binding targets. After 13 years, it is clear that the Government have failed our rivers, our canals and our beaches. The Government are out of touch with public opinion. That is why the motion is important and why I will be voting for it.

Lee Anderson: Another pointless debate from a pointless Opposition—that’s what I am thinking today. The last time they did this, obviously, they were telling people that we were voting to dump sewage into our waterways. That was absolute nonsense. As a result of that, we had malicious communications and threats. We had some real nastiness. The party of “kinder, gentler politics” should take note, but it won’t. But listen—why would anybody vote to dump sewage in waterways? It is absolute nonsense. No one has ever done that. My friends, my family—we all use our waterways. We use our seas, beaches and rivers. It is just not true. It is a complete lie and Opposition Members should hang their heads in shame.
It is important that we put the facts out, rather than score cheap political points. I am not into this divisive dog-whistle politics. It is absolute nonsense—[Laughter.] Even they are laughing. What are storm overflows? They are a relief valve, so that when we have a heavy downpour of rain, sewage does not back up and go on to the streets or back into people’s houses—[Interruption.] Labour Members keep saying “13 years”, but the Labour party was in power for 13 years. They keep talking about the levers they are going to pull—they did absolutely nothing for 13 years. They should be ashamed—a bunch of hypocrites, the lot of them.
Water companies sometimes have to use those overflows. It is not ideal and not always acceptable. The Environment Act, which we introduced, changes that and we are acting on it. We are doing more than the Labour party ever did in its 13 years. Like all its silly ideas, the Labour party no real plan. It is just dog-whistle politics, as I said before.
In this great city, the Thames tideway tunnel is currently under construction. [Interruption.] I came to my senses. Somebody is chuntering from a sedentary position to say that I was once a member of the Labour party. I was, but I woke up, my senses came back and then I was elected as a Conservative MP and that shut up the lot of them. The Thames tideway tunnel will cost £5 billion and take 10 years to complete, but if that lot had their way, we would have seen sewage backing into streets and people’s houses for 10 years. The great British public are not stupid. They get it. Just like our ageing Victorian sewers, that lot are full of it.

Richard Foord: I would like to tell a tale of two announcements. We are used to reannouncements, where the Government use much  fanfare to introduce funding that, it later emerges, they have announced before. But I want to describe something that is new to me: an announcement with two faces.
On 7 April, the Sidmouth Herald quoted a Government press release:
“This week, the water Minister”—
the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow)—
“confirmed £70 million of cash will be used to improve sewage systems in Sidmouth, Tipton St John and Axminster, as well as Falmouth in Cornwall. East Devon’s share of the cash...will help prevent sewage overflows in Sidmouth and Tipton St John, as well as water pollution in Axminster.”
On the surface, that is welcome: £70 million to improve sewage systems in east Devon. Those reading that in the paper in Devon are led to believe that that relates to our area, and might miss the passing reference to a distant town in Cornwall, but readers in my part of Devon are discerning and they notice a mention of Cornwall in a story that is supposed to be about Devon.
To get a full picture of what is going on here, one needs to travel 125 miles south-east of Axminster and read the same announcement in Falmouth’s local newspaper, The Packet. What does the Conservative Government’s announcement claim in Falmouth?
“South West Water’s total investment for the Falmouth area includes...a total of £40 million.”
By reading about the same announcement in the neighbouring county, we find that most of the £70 million funding is not for east Devon at all.
I, for one, will never defer to the interests of polluting water firms or simply parrot the lines they suggest we MPs might like to use. Instead, I will always stand up for my constituents, who are seeing their bills rise and profits leaking out in bonuses, all while sewage poisons our rivers and beaches.

Angela Richardson: Across the country, our beaches and rivers, including the River Wey Navigation, are vital for the health and wellbeing of our communities. Like my constituents, I know how important it is to make sure our natural assets are preserved, not least because every summer I swim in our waters.
It was this Conservative Government who introduced new duties on water companies to monitor water quality upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewage disposal works. It is this Government who are working towards increasing monitoring to 100% of storm overflows by the end of this year. It was under this Government last year that fines reached a record level, where breaches were found.
The Government alone, however, cannot fix each and every leak, and each and every unfortunate discharge event. That is why I welcome the Government incentivising water companies to invest more than £7 billion by 2025 on environmental improvements while protecting people’s water bills, and I welcome the millions of pounds being invested by Thames Water in my constituency.
This is a very complex issue that needs the keen attention of a Government who look out for our waterways and beaches, and our constituents, unlike Labour and  the Liberal Democrats, who have put forward ridiculous plans that would cost up to £593 billion, or £21,000 per household. When it comes to sorting this messy situation out, it is this Conservative Government who are taking action. It is the Labour party that allowed people to pay more while the sewage flowed freely into our waterways and the water companies went unchecked.
I gently say to the Opposition that this politically motivated, politically timed debate on a highly emotive subject is not a neutral act. It overflows beyond this Chamber. I, and other Conservative colleagues, have had to have police come to our homes and offices to make sure we are safe as the result of misinformation on sewage. It has impacted our families and our staff. It is important that my Guildford constituents have the facts, not fearmongering.

Nigel Evans: I call Bob Seely.

Bob Seely: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Has the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) finished? Is he done? Does he want to intervene? In spite of the relentless nastiness from the nasty party on the Opposition Benches, we found out some interesting facts today. Perhaps the Opposition can explain some of them in the wind-up.
There was literally no water monitoring under Labour. Why? There must have been mass dumping, but we do not know about it. Why? Because they hid the problem by not monitoring. What gets me most of all is that the utility firms that those class warriors profess to hate had a sweetheart deal with them to allow them to self-monitor. What a corrupting relationship between new Labour and the big utility firms. Why were they allowed to self-monitor? [Interruption.] Grinning at me inanely does not answer the question. They were actually taken to court by their lovely buddies in the European Union. I could not make it up. I thank the Secretary of State for her calm and measured sentiments—I am trying to be measured but I am probably not doing a good job, I must admit—as opposed to the nonsense that we have heard from the Opposition.
Thanks to this Government, on the Isle of Wight, Southern Water is investing tens of millions. I persuaded Southern Water to make the Isle of Wight an example of best practice, through Sandown water works, £2.5 million for Knighton, £5 million for Carisbrooke and £7 million for works in Newport, Cowes and Brading. The full list is extensive. I encourage all Islanders who get the offer of a free water butt from Southern Water to take up that option. As well as improving the pumping stations and replumbing parts of the drainage system, we are providing slow-release water butts and redesigning road surfaces. The improvements that we are making as a pilot scheme and an example of best practice today on the Island will be rolled out everywhere else as part of the integrated water plan, the integrated sewage plan and all the good things that are happening under the Environment Act.

Sally-Ann Hart: My hon. Friend raises the work that Southern Water is doing on the Isle of Wight. We have a Fairlight Pathfinder project on my patch, which will be  rolling out smart water butts that slow down surface water run-off. I am looking forward to seeing how that works.

Bob Seely: Community schemes are a small part of this. People write to me and ask, what can a community scheme do? Hon. Members are right that major investment has to happen, but the first pilot scheme in Britain took place in a beautiful little village called Havenstreet in my patch. On average, Havenstreet pumping station spills 30 times a year—sewage or storm discharge goes into the river 30 times a year. After two thirds of eligible residents took up Southern Water’s offer of a free water butt and free installation—no money is exchanged, and Southern Water will never ask for money—the result has been a 70% reduction in water spills. I am putting out letters to every community that can get those butts from Southern Water. I have written to almost all the relevant residents in Gurnard. Letters will go out to Fishbourne and Wootton next, then Freshwater. I encourage them, because the more people who take up the offer of a free water butt, the more successful the scheme.
By improving pumping stations, replumbing parts of the drainage system, providing slow-release butts and redesigning surfaces to make them more porous, we are changing the system for the better. Overall, thanks to the Secretary of State, the Environment Act the sewage plans and the national water plan, we have a positive plan for Britain. Labour is playing catch-up; it offers nothing but second-rate, class-war rhetoric and the politics of abuse and hate. I strongly support the Government’s amendment.

Anna Firth: Good water quality is something that everyone in Southend West takes extremely seriously. Our 1,000-year-old cockle industry and our sea-front businesses, including Sealife Adventure, Adventure Island and Rossi’s ice cream parlour, which attract 6 million tourists to our beaches, depend on the quality of our coastal waters. That is why it is so important that we are honest and truthful about the progress that this Conservative Government have made in improving our water quality over the past decade. Frankly, the fearmongering and electioneering we have seen from the Opposition today is shameful.
These are the facts: successive Conservative Governments have increased the percentage of bathing waters classified as good or excellent from 76% in 2010 to 93% now, which is an increase of over 20%. That figure includes every single bathing water in my beautiful constituency and is significantly higher than the European average, which is only 88%.
There is now 80% less phosphorus and 85% less ammonia in our waters than in 1990, when the water companies were privatised. That is why we have an explosion of seals, porpoises and octopuses, and why wrasse is now found off Southend when once it was a rarity. Only two weeks ago, I joined the Environment Agency, Southend Against Sewage and the famous Bluetits Chill Swimmers to test the quality of the water at Chalkwell beach and, once again, found it to be excellent. Hon. Members are welcome to visit at any time.
However, I am not suggesting that we do not have a problem or that any dumping of sewage into our waterways should be condoned; of course it should not. That is why I am proud we have a Government—the first  Government—who have brought in a storm overflows sewage reduction plan and will oversee an investment of £56 billion in modernisation. That is absolutely huge, and more than the entire annual budget of the Scottish Government.
That is also why I am bearing down on my water company all the time. I held a water summit in my patch and brought all the stakeholders together in order to ensure that the chief executive is well aware of the obligations placed on him by the Secretary of State of this Conservative Government. By 30 June, which is in only 10 weeks’ time, all of my constituents will know the action plan for each of the storm overflows in my constituency, the number and duration of spills, and, most critically, when improvements will be delivered and when there will outcomes from the interventions. Those are the actions my constituents want to see happening and they are the actions of a responsible, serious Government.

Tim Farron: In Cumbria, it is our privilege to be the stewards not only of the fells and the dales, but of our lakes, rivers and coastal waterways. That is why we are angry about the fact that six out of 10 of the longest spills of sewage in this country in 2022 happened in our county of Cumbria. Sewage was pumped into the River Kent at Staveley for 169 days, into the River Eden at Kirkby Stephen for 101 days and into the River Eea at Cark for 252 days. At Windermere, the centre of the Lake district’s tourism and economy, and the largest lake in England, sewage was pumped into the lake or its tributaries for 5,000 hours.
Sewage is discharged not only in Cumbria. As I speak, sewage is being discharged into the River Mole at Esher, which happened 220 times last year. There were 280 spills in Winchester, 750 spills in Lewes, and 2,200 spills in the borough of Stockport. All of these were legal. United Utilities in the north-west is the worst offender because it is situated in the wettest part of England, and therefore storms happen and overflows are permitted more often.
Let us also look at the situation with regard to bathing water, which we have heard many people talk about today, and the way it ensures higher water quality. We bid for bathing water status for Coniston Water and the River Kent, but we were turned down, despite those being more popular bathing sites than many places where that status was granted. I have heard what Government Members have said about monitoring, but in 2021 12% of the monitoring stations were faulty and 16% were faulty last year, so what we know is probably an underestimate of the state of the problem.
We have talked about legal dumping of sewage, but what about illegal dumping? In 2021 and 2022, there were 827 offences and illegal dumps of sewage. How many of those 827 were prosecuted? Just 16, which means that this Government have effectively decriminalised the dumping of sewage in our rivers, lakes and coastal waterways. Water companies know that that will happen and factor in the fines, because it is cheaper to pay them than to invest in the infrastructure. Since privatisation, £65.9 billion has been paid out in water company dividends. There was a 20% increase in executive pay last year. We hear the Government saying that the polluter should pay. Yes, the polluters pay: they pay themselves massive bonuses.
In Cumbria and across the country, we are outraged. It is not just about the threat to the biodiversity of our lakes and rivers, to our fish stocks, to those who swim, to our pets using our waterways and to the tourism economy that underpins the Lake district. It is also about the deep injustice that large corporations are raking in enormous profits, while this Government are doing nothing to stop them pumping sewage into the waterways that we value so dearly in Cumbria and elsewhere.

Alex Sobel: I will start on a positive note by thanking those who have actively engaged in this public health, environmental and economic issue, which has been an absolute catastrophe for our country. I thank my friend Feargal Sharkey, the singer turned formidable environmental campaigner, for his tireless work in bringing to life the impact that sewage dumping is having on every part of our country. It is also important to recognise the work of the campaign group Top of the Poops, alongside Surfers Against Sewage, in collating constituency data to allow the public to see the extent of the Tory sewage scandal in the areas where they live, work and holiday.
Opposition Members have made some extremely powerful speeches illustrating the impact of the sewage scandal in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) made a good point about excessive corporate pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) spoke about the effect on the biodiversity of our birds and fish. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) pointed out that bills have gone up by 40%.

Bob Seely: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Sobel: Unfortunately we have limited time, so I will make some progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) rightly highlighted the importance of the unique habitats that chalk streams provide. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) pointed out that we need increased regulation that is good for people. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and other north-west Members rightly pointed out that United Utilities has the highest number of discharges. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) pointed out that constituents have suffered heavily because of overflows in her constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is a keen wild swimmer, has been an excellent campaigner for Plymouth sound to get clean bathing water status. I hope his campaign comes to fruition. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) pointed out that the Government have a 27-year plan. Who can wait that long for our rivers to be clean? My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) represents Whitstable beach, where I have swum. She pointed out that swimmers can no longer use it because of the sewage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) pointed out that United Utilities uses the courts to protect itself from private prosecution,  which is exactly why our Bill is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) pointed out the danger that sewage poses to the ambitious plans of our metro Mayors. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) told the House about the horrendous 17-hour spill just outside Reading. Our Bill would end such incidents. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) rightly mentioned sustainable drainage systems and grey-water storage as part of the solution. There have been so many excellent speeches today.
We have to ask ourselves some questions. Is the water industry operating in the public interest? No. Is it right for the Tories to allow water companies to dump raw sewage into our waters? No. Is it time for change? Yes. Of course, we cannot and will not just let water companies off the hook. We should not allow them to wash their hands of the issue and walk off the pitch with £72 billion in dividends, leaving behind a broken system.

Bob Seely: rose—

Alex Sobel: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine.

Bob Seely: Earlier today, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) made a truly dire attempt at public speaking in which he avoided most of the questions put to him. One of the critical questions was why the last Labour Government allowed the utility firms to self-monitor. Does that not exemplify an uncomfortable, corrupting relationship between the last Labour Government and the public utilities?

Alex Sobel: When Labour left office in 2010, the Environment Agency said that our rivers were the cleanest at any time since before the industrial revolution. That is Labour’s record.
It should not be left to us or to the public to clean up the mess and pay the price of Tory failure, but we will have to do it. Conservative Members have made the argument that that will involve households picking up the tab. It will not. Our plan, unlike the Government’s, does not require increasing taxpayers’ bills.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), in the absence of a credible plan, Labour has done the Secretary of State’s job for her in presenting its own oven-ready plan: to deliver the mandatory monitoring of all sewage outlets and a standing-charge penalty for all water companies that do not have properly functioning monitors in place; to deliver automatic fines on polluters, which is not happening under this Government; to give regulators the necessary power and require them to enforce the rules properly; to set legally binding sewage-dumping reduction targets that will end the Tory sewage scandal by 2030 and not 2050; and crucially, to ensure that any failure to improve is paid for by water companies, which will not be able to pass the charge on to customers’ bills or slash investment.
What we have set out in my hon. Friend’s Bill is just the first phase of Labour’s plan to clear up the mess, but we are under no illusions: the system is fundamentally broken. That is why we need a phase 2 plan—which we will set out in due course—to reform the sector, placing delivery for the public good at the heart of the water  industry. There needs to be a greater degree of public oversight in the running of the water industry to protect the public interest, because under the Tories, households are paying the price of a failing water industry, through first having to pay for sewage treatment in their water bills while the Tories allow corner-cutting and the dumping of raw sewage in our waters rather than its being treated properly. I recently discovered that only 37% of our sewage treatment plants even have storage tanks, while the others discharge straight into the local rivers, and even the simplest precautions are not being taken in the majority of our sewage plants—

Duncan Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Sobel: I think that time is against us—yes, you are indicating that it is, Madam Deputy Speaker—so unfortunately I cannot take any more interventions.
Secondly, households are paying the price of the impact that this is having on the NHS, the economy and the environment. I am disappointed but not surprised at the conduct of Tory Members who, once again, stood up one after the other and merely read out the cobbled-together lines of the panicked Government Whips—[Interruption.] That is not true! I wrote this speech myself, thank you very much. The Government Whips are struggling to find any serious reasons for blocking Labour’s common-sense approach. Being forced to resort to that is a symptom of a Tory Government who have run out of road and of ideas.
It is unfortunate, and slightly embarrassing for them, that the Government Whips have misunderstood Labour’s plan, fed Tory Members inaccurate numbers and got their maths wrong, which is no surprise given the state of our economy. The Minister may wish to correct the record on their behalf, because if they had read the Bill they would have seen that there are safeguards that prevent anyone from gaming the system. In any case, the Government’s own economic regulator, Ofwat, already has the power to protect customers’ bills.
The Secretary of State’s own Department has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of Labour’s plan, which shows that cleaning up this mess would cost water companies a fraction of the £72 billion that they have taken out in dividends. There is no reason for inaction—and how much is that inaction costing the NHS, and businesses that are forced to pull down the shutters because of sewage dumping? But with the Tories, there is always a reason not to act in the public interest, and nothing is ever their fault. Bluster, blame game and blocking measures to clean up their mass sewage dumping mess—you name it, they have blamed it, as I have heard throughout the afternoon, whether it is people who use their toilets, the Welsh Government or home drainage systems. The Secretary of State even blamed the Victorians for causing this mess, more than 100 years ago. In case they have forgotten, let me point out that it is the Tories in Westminster who are responsible for economic regulation of the water industry in England and Wales, with the levers of power that are key to improving industry performance and holding water companies to account.
Tory Members now have a second chance to do the right thing, having previously voted to continue sewage dumping. If they vote with Labour today, we can end the sewage scandal once and for all. Their alternative is  simply to follow the lead by continuing to vote for sewage dumping for no good reason. If they do refuse to back our plan, it will be either because they have not bothered to read the Bill and are blindly following the direction of the Secretary of State, or because they do not understand the Bill and, as their contributions today suggest, are inadvertently misleading the House about the reasons for continuing to vote for sewage dumping.
Let me be clear: the public are watching and listening. The choice this evening is simple. Members can either vote for our plan to end the Tory sewage scandal by 2030, with water companies finally being made to do the job that households are already paying them to do, or they can, for a second time, vote to allow the dumping of raw sewage in the constituencies that we all represent.

Nigel Evans: I now call the Minister, and remind the House that the Front Benchers can speak for equal amounts of time when winding up the debate.

Rebecca Pow: The debate provides a welcome and much-needed opportunity to set the record straight on sewage and what the Government are doing. Not only are we taking this issue extremely seriously, but we are and have been acting. We have a realistic, costed plan to clean up our network of rivers and coasts, and it is already in operation—and what a tide of positivity we have heard from the Conservative Benches today.
There is general consensus among all our colleagues that this Government have a pragmatic, practical, costed, reliable and comprehensive plan. Those words have been used by all colleagues, and we are all pulling together to understand this issue. Those colleagues included my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Gedling (Tom Randall), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson)—plain speaking, as ever—as well as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) with her wonderful adaptive surfing centre, my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) and for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who systematically unpicked the Labour party’s plan by himself.
Following today’s debate, I cannot help but feel that for the Opposition this is nothing but a political game to fire up those outside this place with a view to making some sort of gain. Labour’s plan is completely superfluous. Where have Labour Members been? We are doing all these things they are asking for, and more. It was this Government who uncovered the scandal of storm sewage overflows being used far too frequently, because it was this party that increased the monitoring of storm sewage overflows. We have ramped it up from a paltry 7% under Labour to 91% now, and it will be 100% by the end of  the year. It was also the Labour Government who were taken to court for pollution, so where the idea of all those clean rivers comes from, I do not know.
What did we discover from all our monitoring? We discovered that water companies were indeed using storm sewage overflows far too frequently, and that is completely unacceptable. So what did we do? We acted. We brought in the Environment Act 2021 to require a new storm overflow discharge reduction plan, fully costed and with a clear impact assessment, delivering up to £56 billion of capital investment to revolutionise our Victorian infrastructure. We are consulting on lifting the cap on fines entirely so that the Environment Agency can issue potentially unlimited penalties on water companies, in addition to Ofwat’s existing powers to fine companies up to 10% of annual turnover.
Ofwat has strengthened its powers on executive pay awards so that if water companies want to pay bonuses even if environmental performance is found wanting, their shareholders must pay for that, not their customers. Through the new water restoration fund, money collected through fines will be spent on improving water quality. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) needs to get with the programme: we have already done what he asked. Our Treasury friends who sit here agreed to it. We are also bringing in new monitoring requirements under the Environment Act for near real-time reporting on storm overflows. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth asked if we could do more. Yes; we are going to increase water quality monitoring upstream and downstream.

Munira Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Rebecca Pow: I am not going to give way, because there simply is not time.
I note that the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) likes our monitoring ideas in the Environment Act so much that he has put our monitoring framework from the Act into clause 1 of his Bill. Marvellous! We also recently published our integrated plan for water. This includes an announcement that we are accelerating £1.6 billion of investment in reducing storm overflow discharges, upgrading wastewater treatment works and bringing in measures to improve drought resilience. The whole issue is extremely complicated, and that is why I made this a priority when I came into the Department. Our plan for water sets out how we will deliver the improvements we need across all matters connected to water, including all forms of pollution.
I ask people to remember that no Conservative Member has ever voted to allow raw sewage into our rivers. We voted for measures to clean up our rivers, and the Opposition voted against them. We have produced much cleaner water since Victorian times. We have almost the highest-quality drinking water in the world, and 93% of our bathing waters are excellent.
How could we take Labour’s suggestions on sewage seriously? Labour’s plans would potentially require enough pipes to be dug up from our roads to go around the globe two and a half times. Can anyone imagine the disruption that would cause, not to mention that it is totally impractical? We have heard no clear indication  of how Labour’s plan would be paid for. Would it be added to customers’ bills? The shadow Minister could not answer that question on Sky this morning, and I did not hear the answer this afternoon. As for the Lib Dems, it is really not worth commenting on what they say.
The scale of this Government’s ambition cannot be highlighted enough, and I urge all colleagues to support the Government’s amendment.

Nigel Evans: We will vote first on the Government’s amendment, because the amendment simply deletes wording. Should the amendment be made, I anticipate that there will be a second vote on the main Question. That is unlike the second debate today, for which the amendment also adds substance and therefore the Question on the Opposition wording will be put first. Did you all get that? Turn your papers over and begin.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 188.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put.

Nigel Evans: I remind Members that they really should follow their voices; I do not want to see a zero at the end of the vote.

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 0.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to set a target for the reduction of sewage discharges, to provide for financial penalties in relation to sewage discharges and breaches of monitoring requirements, and to carry out an impact assessment of sewage discharges.

David Davis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A little while ago, when Peter Tatchell came to visit me, he had a badge confiscated from him—a campaigning badge against homophobia. I subsequently received a letter of apology from the Serjeant at Arms saying that he would look at that practice. Yesterday, some other people came to visit me. They had a series of leaflets about the Chinese Government’s treatment of Jimmy Lai, and those were confiscated too. There may well be a well-intentioned purpose behind this, but will the House authorities look at the operation of these rules, because it seems very odd that it is illegal to bring political material into the House of Commons.

Nigel Evans: I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. I will raise this issue with the Serjeant at Arms tomorrow, and I will get back in touch with him.

Cost of Living Increases

Nigel Evans: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Tulip Siddiq: I beg to move,
That this House condemns successive Conservative Governments for their mismanagement of the economy over 13 years; regrets that this has resulted in the UK being the only G7 economy that is still smaller than before the pandemic, with squeezed wages and higher mortgage rates that have increased costs by £500 a month for some households; further regrets that successive Chancellors have made working people pay for the Government’s economic failure with 24 tax rises since 2019, creating the highest tax burden in 70 years, while refusing to abolish the non-domicile tax loophole; is extremely concerned about the impact on household budgets of an inflation rate of more than 10 per cent with food prices rising at their fastest rate in 45 years; therefore calls on the Government to ease the cost of living crisis by freezing council tax this year, paid for by an extended windfall tax on oil and gas company profits; further calls on the Government to cut business rates for small businesses and support energy intensive industries including food manufacturers with their energy bills to help bring down the cost of everyday items; and finally calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s economic mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 with good jobs in every part of the country.
It astonishes me that the Conservatives are acting like the cost of living crisis is over and their economic plan is working. The Chancellor is proudly boasting that Britain is back. He has even said:
“The declinists are wrong and the optimists are right. We stick to the plan because the plan is working.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 847.]
What planet does the Chancellor live on? Does he understand the reality on the ground for all of our constituents? Does he understand that on the Prime Minister’s watch, our economy is weaker, with the UK forecast to have the worst growth in the G7 this year? Real wages are lower than they were 15 years ago, with families in the UK going into the cost of living crisis significantly poorer than those in comparable European countries. The price of everyday essentials has risen by an eye-watering £3,000 since 2020, and never before have people in this country paid so much money for so little value from their public services.
The disconnect between this Conservative fantasy and the experiences of ordinary people could not be wider. Decent, hard-working people across the country are being forced to cut back on the things that underpin a good life. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will explain what I mean by a good life: a meal out once in a while with close friends, the special annual family holiday that you look forward to all year round, and a decent home to call your own. Those are increasingly things of the past; instead, people are left worrying about how they are going to pay their household bills at the end of the month and their rocketing mortgage costs.

Florence Eshalomi: I thank my hon. Friend for opening her speech in such a powerful way. Does she agree that it is really worrying that we hear tales of parents going without a meal, just to make sure that their children are able to eat?

Tulip Siddiq: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is a doughty champion for the children from deprived families who live in her constituency. We have surgeries where people line up to speak to us who cannot afford to eat because, as my hon. Friend says, they are saving their money to buy one meal for their children. This is Britain in 2023. We should not be in this situation.
It is important to remember how we got here in the first place. The Government have mishandled the cost of living crisis at every turn. Indeed, we will never forget the Conservatives crashing the economy last year, and we will never forgive them for it.

Layla Moran: The hon. Lady is totally right about the perverse choices that people are having to make. A young mum in Abingdon who has her kids in childcare is having to decide whether she pays the debt that she owes to the childcare provider, pays her prescription charges, or buys food for herself and her children. How is that a country that we can be proud of? It is because the Conservatives mismanaged the economy, is it not?

Tulip Siddiq: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She has outlined lots of situations that we hear about every day from our constituents, yet the Conservatives say that their economic plan is working—it is clearly not working. The resulting rise in interest rates and the economic instability have added £500 a month to first-time buyers’ bills. For too many, dreams of home ownership and starting a family have been destroyed—another pillar of the good life knocked away.

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the Chancellor’s suggestion that the Government are the optimists and we are the declinists. In fact, are the optimists not those people who have taken on a mortgage and achieved that dream of home ownership, and who are being so cruelly let down by the incompetence of this Government?

Tulip Siddiq: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to ask the Conservatives how they can continue to live in this fantasy world, because it does not match the reality on the ground. Let us not forget the impact of rising prices. Food prices are growing 50% faster than anywhere else in the G7, putting Britain’s food inflation rate at 19.2%, compared with an average of 12.8%. The price of sugar is up by an incredible 42%. Milk is up by more than 33%, and pasta is up by 25%. The UK has the highest inflation level in western Europe. That is a national scandal.

David Johnston: The hon. Lady says that the inflation figures here are higher than anywhere else in the G7. Food price inflation in Germany is over 22%, compared with 17% in the UK. Is that also the fault of the Conservative Government?

Tulip Siddiq: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not proud of all the figures I am outlining and the high inflation that is coming up. The Conservatives can manipulate the stats all they want, but they cannot run away from the fact that we are falling behind our peers. That is not something I am proud of, and they should not be either.
Since 2020, the cost of a typical food shop is up by £700 a year. Clothing and footwear are up by £140. Household goods and services are up by £360. Transport is up by £800. [Interruption.] I do not know why Government Members are laughing; these are real figures that our constituents are dealing with. The essentials of housing, fuel and power are up by a shocking £1,480.

Luke Evans: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Government have subsidised people’s energy bills by about 50%, and if so, by how much would Labour subsidise them?

Tulip Siddiq: I will come to energy shortly. If the hon. Member were able to answer, I would ask him whether he thinks 50% is enough, because it is not enough. If he speaks to people on the ground, he will see how much they are struggling. The rising costs of everyday essentials mean that families across the country are making cutbacks just to stay afloat. That has been devastating for local economies, with communities losing the businesses and institutions that bind us together.

Jamie Stone: It is a fact that the village of Altnaharra in my constituency is every year the coldest place in the entire United Kingdom. We already have pensioners having to make the invidious decision to wrap themselves up in blankets and put the heating off. No one should face that sort of decision.

Tulip Siddiq: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The situations being described are not what we want to hear about in our country in 2023, and we should not be proud of this record; we should be trying to do better.
Under this Government, more than 6,000 pubs, nearly 4,000 local shops and 9,000 bank branches have closed on our local high streets. That is nothing to be proud of.

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I am sure we have all been concerned by stories from our constituents who are missing out on meals, eating out-of-date food or unable to clean their clothes as often as they want. Does she share my concern that that is having a devastating impact on the development of young children in the early years? We need to know that those children are fed and have heating.

Tulip Siddiq: My hon. Friend is always fighting for her constituents, and she is absolutely right. As someone who was on the shadow Education team before I came to this role, I know that if our young children are not fed or looked after properly, they will not fulfil their potential in this country. We should be looking at the future generations, and the Government are ignoring them.
The Government’s mishandling of the cost of living crisis is just another chapter in the long story of 13 years of economic failure. More than a decade of Conservative rule has seen our country fall behind as the British economy has experienced low growth, rock-bottom productivity rates and chronic under-investment.

Kim Leadbeater: My hon. Friend is making an important speech. I find it deeply offensive that Conservative Members are laughing at  some of these statistics. That just shows how out of touch they are with the reality of life for so many people across this country. Does she agree that it is an absolute travesty in 2023 that we have families where children are having to share beds, sleep on the floor or sleep in the bathtub because people cannot afford to move house, to pay their rent and to pay for food for their families? That is not a laughing matter.

Tulip Siddiq: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Having campaigned in her constituency, I know there are huge levels of poverty in certain places. Someone from the back said that we are lucky here because we are MPs and get paid a decent salary. We certainly should not be laughing at people who are struggling to make ends meet.
I remind the House that, when Labour was in government, real GDP growth averaged 2%. If growth had continued at the same rate under this Tory Government, we would have £40 billion more to spend on our public services, without having to raise a single tax. Instead, a lack of strategic policy making, economic uncertainty and the absence of an industrial strategy mean that the UK is going through the slowest economic recovery in the G7.

Jerome Mayhew: The hon. Lady is asserting that the UK economy has fallen behind since 2010. Does she recognise the figures that show that this country has actually grown faster than Italy, Japan and France since 2010 to date and that, since 2016—since the Brexit vote—it has grown at about the same pace as Germany?

Tulip Siddiq: The Conservatives can manipulate the stats as much as they want, but they cannot run away from the fact that we are falling behind our peers. [Laughter.] I do not care how much Conservative Members want to laugh; I know that is the truth. It is families who are bearing the brunt of the low growth. A decade of stagnant wages has left the British people highly exposed to rising prices. If the hon. Member who just intervened can dispute this figure, he is welcome to intervene again: the average French and German family are now 10% and 19% richer than their respective British counterparts. If we continue down this path of managed decline and our growth rate stays where it has been over the past decade, families in the UK will be poorer than those in Poland by 2030 and poorer than those in Hungary and Romania by 2040. I see the hon. Member—

Jerome Mayhew: rose—

Tulip Siddiq: Yes, please.

Jerome Mayhew: It is a great pleasure to be given the role of the Opposition spokesman from the Back Benches here, but there is a difference between economic data that is factual, has happened and can be verified, and straight-line projections of the future between now and 2030 that have not happened and will not happen.

Tulip Siddiq: As I figured, the hon. Member did not have a response to the question I asked. If we do not break with the Tories’ failed economic model, the necessary underpinnings of a good life—as I have mentioned, fair wages, secure work, a decent home—will be further eroded.

Christine Jardine: The hon. Lady is making a powerful case and making a salient point. Does she agree that the constituents she has already mentioned, who are dealing with all these price hikes—the worst in 45 years—and who come to our constituency offices every week, do not care that we grew faster than Italy in 2010, but they care that they cannot heat their homes now and cannot feed their children and they are worried about their elderly parents? The blame can be laid at nobody’s door but this Conservative Government’s.

Tulip Siddiq: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right. This Conservative fantasy just does not match up to the reality on the ground.
Instead of putting forward a comprehensive plan for growth, successive Conservative Chancellors have made hard-working families pay for their economic failure. The Conservatives have become the party of tax rises for the hard-working majority. Since 2019, the British people have been hit with 24 tax rises. It is the highest tax burden in 70 years. Earlier this month, we saw council tax bills rise above £2,000—some Members might think that is funny; it is not funny for my constituents—for the first time, as the Chancellor effectively forced councils to put up rates by reducing their funding. That saw families who were already struggling hit with an additional average tax hike of 5.1%—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members have something to say, instead of chuntering from a sedentary position, they should intervene. They should not shout from the front.

Simon Baynes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tulip Siddiq: With pleasure.

Simon Baynes: Earlier, the hon. Lady mentioned fair work. Does she agree that the rise in unemployment under the last Labour Government from 2.1 million to 2.5 million, and the 45% increase in youth unemployment, is far removed from fair work?

Tulip Siddiq: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Labour Government introduced the first minimum wage, slashed child poverty and slashed pensioner poverty because we grew the economy—something this Government have failed to do?

Alex Davies-Jones: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and outlining exactly what Labour did in government to make a difference for working people. In Labour-led Wales, where the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) is also an MP, we have just increased the education maintenance allowance, which was scrapped in England, to give students the opportunity not to have to choose between buying books and going to school, and having to find a job to support themselves.

Tulip Siddiq: I hope hon. Members hear that before they start criticising any sort of Labour Government.
Things are only set to get worse. The Government’s stealth tax and freeze on income tax and national insurance contribution thresholds will, according to the Resolution Foundation, cost households £25 billion a year by 2027-28.

Paul Bristow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tulip Siddiq: Not now, as I want to make some progress. At the same time, the Chancellor has given the 1% wealthiest pension savers a £1 billion handout, and he has continued to defend the indefensible: the non-domicile tax loophole. Instead of growing the economy and boosting wages, the Conservatives have resorted to hammering ordinary people with tax rises. It is time for a radically different approach.

Paul Bristow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tulip Siddiq: I will make a bit of progress. We need a bold plan for growth that confronts the problems of the UK’s declining economy head on. That is why the Government must adopt Labour’s mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, with job creation and productivity growth in every part of the country, making everyone, not just a few, better off. That may seem ambitious, but Britain has so much potential.

Luke Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tulip Siddiq: I will give way one more time.

Luke Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The motion says that Labour will extend the windfall tax on oil and gas companies and
“further calls on the Government to cut business rates for small businesses”.
What values would the Labour Opposition propose?

Tulip Siddiq: I am just about to come to the part of my speech about the windfall tax and business rates, so if the hon. Gentleman listens carefully, he will hear. The talents and efforts of working people and British businesses mean that we lead the way in financial and legal services, and the tech and life sciences sectors. With a proper industrial strategy, the UK economy will not just lead the pack again, but communities written off by the Conservatives will have the backing they need to make their full contribution to our great nation. Labour will achieve that by forging a new covenant between Government and industry, bringing in public investment through our green prosperity plan to support new industries. That will include investment in areas such as fuel cell manufacturing, nuclear, hydrogen and home insulation to bring down energy prices and create well-paid jobs in the industries of the future across the UK, while fixing the holes in the Brexit deal and bringing in a proper supply chain strategy will help to tackle inflation and build the resilient trading economy we need to get ahead.
Labour will work in partnership with businesses to help people get the skills and opportunities they need. We will not leave potential untapped. We will fix the apprenticeship levy, improve local employment services and help first-time buyers get on the housing ladder through a comprehensive mortgage guarantee scheme to boost local living standards. Only Labour, through our plan to grow the economy, will create the conditions for a good life in every part of the country. We will create well-paid jobs, bring home ownership back within reach for young families and ensure that the NHS delivers for all.

Alexander Stafford: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tulip Siddiq: The hon. Member may want to sit down and hear the next bit because I am sure he is going to ask the same question.
However, we also recognise that people need help today. That is why, if Labour were in government today, we would freeze council tax this year to stop bills from rising above £2,000, paid for by an extended windfall tax on oil and gas company profits. Even though Office for National Statistics figures confirm that 2022 was a record year for North sea oil and gas profits—even though the ONS confirmed that—the Conservatives are again choosing to protect the energy giants’ windfalls of war.

Ben Bradley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tulip Siddiq: I think the hon. Gentleman should listen, actually.
By refusing to backdate the tax to January 2022, end the investment allowance tax loophole and raise the rate in line with other countries, the Chancellor has left billions on the table, leaving working people to pick up the rising council tax bill. Labour would use the additional funds raised by a proper windfall tax to cut energy bills for domestic food manufacturers and processors, and we would cut business rates for small shops, paid for by properly taxing online giants, to bring down the eyewatering cost of everyday items. We would also reverse the Conservative decision to hand the 1% wealthiest pension savers a £1 billion handout and instead introduce specific measures to keep doctors in work. And we would close the non-dom tax loophole, so people who live and work here pay their tax here. We would use that money to fund one of the biggest expansions of the NHS workforce in history. Those are straightforward measures. The Government could introduce them today to show people they are on their side, but we know they will not because they have given up on Britain.
At the heart of today’s Opposition day debate is a simple question that everyone up and down the country will be asking themselves: “After 13 years of Conservative rule, am I better off?” The simple answer is no. People now have a clear choice: between a tired Conservative Government out of ideas, and a Labour party committed to forging a new partnership with British business to create good jobs and boost wages; between a Conservative Party that puts developers before first-time buyers, and a Labour party committed to the principle of home ownership and giving young families a start in life; and between the Conservatives, the party of high taxation and Government handouts to the wealthiest 1%, and Labour, the party committed to putting working people and businesses first, freezing council tax and cutting business rates to ease the cost of living. Only the Labour party has a serious plan for growth to improve living standards and wages for working people. [Interruption.] Those on the Conservative Benches can laugh all they want, but only the Labour party has a vision of a better life for the British people.

John Glen: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the Government’s action to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt; supports the Government’s extensive efforts to support families up and down the country with the cost  of living through significant support to help with rising prices, worth an average of £3,300 per household including direct cash payments of at least £900 to the eight million most vulnerable households; notes the use of a windfall tax on energy firm’s profits to pay around half of the typical family’s energy bill through the Energy Price Guarantee, also notes the fact that the Government has frozen fuel duty for 13 consecutive years to support motorists; welcomes the expansion of free childcare to all eligible parents of children aged nine months to four years old; and notes that Labour will fail to grip inflation or boost economic growth, with their plans for the economy simply leading to unfunded spending, higher debt and uncontrolled migration.”
Even in times of economic challenge, this is a Government who prioritise helping families face down the cost of living. I think Members across all sides of the House recognise that having come through the covid crisis, families and businesses across the country have felt additional global headwinds. After two decades of low inflation, the world has been confronted with fast-growing prices. We are not alone. While we tackle this, our friends in Ukraine are at war and we are supporting them diplomatically, militarily and economically. We have faced down those challenges while supporting our economy and, because of the action we took, we avoided a recession. Our sensible, credible economic plan is working. The International Monetary Fund said we are on the right track, unemployment remains very low by historic standards, and measures in the spring Budget deliver the largest permanent increase in potential GDP that the Office for Budget Responsibility has ever scored in a medium-term forecast, as a result of Government policy.

Emma Hardy: I realise that this will bring back painful memories for the right hon. Gentleman, but he may recall that the previous Prime Minister crashed the economy. The UK has been uniquely impacted. The issues with Ukraine and covid are impacting the rest of the world, but they are impacting the UK in a slightly different way because of the previous Prime Minister’s actions. I know that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to erase all memory of that, but he must acknowledge that her actions have had a consequence, and the British taxpayer is still paying the price.

John Glen: I value all my colleagues. The previous Prime Minister’s insights into the growth imperative in this economy were right.

Paul Bristow: Could my right hon. Friend help me? Some of the faces on the Opposition Benches seem so glum because we have avoided a recession—could he explain why?

John Glen: My hon. Friend is right. I approach the job of government with a sense of humility about the challenge we face.
I recognise that we have made significant progress in recent months—that has been generally acknowledged. I will now set out where else we will make progress. Although it is welcome that wholesale energy prices have been falling, many families remain under significant pressure. The Government understand that. Food prices are contributing to headline inflation. Rising food prices, however, are not a unique issue to the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) pointed out. It is a problem that advanced economies are facing. For example, as he correctly pointed out, in Germany,  food price inflation is above 22%. We are fully alive to the fact that some people remain in real distress. I want to assure Members and their constituents that we will always stand ready to help where we can.

Luke Evans: Is it not about compassion in government? That is why pensioners on a fixed income and people on benefits will receive a 10% increase. Also, the fourth iteration of the household support fund is there directly to help the most vulnerable to get through those tough times.

John Glen: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a moment I will set out exactly what interventions we have made and how we are continuing to intervene to support the most vulnerable in our communities across the United Kingdom.
The best thing we can do to help people’s money go further is to deliver on our plan to halve inflation and grow the economy. In doing so, we will meet the Prime Minister’s five pledges to the British people. Three of those are economic—two of which I have mentioned—and reflect people’s priorities. Inflation makes us all poorer. It has to be tackled head-on, which is why, working closely with the Bank of England, we are bearing down on it. We are also growing the economy.

John Redwood: Will the Minister confirm the IMF figures that in 2020 to 2022—that important three-year period after we left the EU—the UK was the fastest growing economy of the G7? The Opposition’s forecast that the UK might be a poorer performer this year is just a forecast, and most forecasts are usually wrong.

John Glen: As always, my right hon. Friend is on the money. The point is that forecasts predict many different things. I have been in the Treasury for nearly five years; forecasts for every fiscal event rarely prove to be true at the next fiscal event.
We must continue to focus on taking the right decisions, decision by decision, and prove those forecasters wrong. That means long-term, sustainable and healthy growth that pays for our NHS and schools, finds jobs for young people and provides a safety net for older people, all while making our country one of the most prosperous in the world. It also means reducing debt, which we are on track to do. In fact, because of the decisions we have taken and the improved outlook for the public finances, underlying debt in five years’ time is now forecast to be nearly three percentage points lower than back in the autumn. That means more money for our public services and a lower burden on future generations—deeply held Conservative values, which we put into practice today. It is these steps that will make our country and our people better off. We are also taking action to shelter the most vulnerable while we achieve these longer-term ambitions for the economy.
In the Budget, we announced that the energy price guarantee would remain at £2,500 per year until July 2023. That was funded in part by the energy profits levy that this Government introduced last year, recognising that profit levels in the sector had increased significantly due to very high oil and gas prices caused by global circumstances, including of course Russia’s invasion of  Ukraine. The levy is expected to raise just under £26 billion between 2022-23 and 2027-28, on top of around £25 billion in tax receipts from the sector in the same period through the permanent tax regime. The energy price guarantee measure will save the average family a further £160 on top of the energy support measures already announced, bringing total Government support for energy bills to £1,500 for the typical household since October 2022.
It is worth recapping those measures. This Government have helped all domestic electricity customers with £400 off their energy bills through the energy bills support scheme. The energy bills support scheme alternative funding provides £400 to around 900,000 households that are not supplied by domestic electricity contracts and are unable to receive support automatically through the energy bills support scheme.
Our support has not stopped there. Alongside holding down energy bills, freezing fuel duty and increasing universal credit, we are giving up to £900 in cost of living payments to households on means-tested benefits. Starting from today, over 8 million families across the UK will receive the first £301 cost of living payment from the Government. That is the first of up to three payments for those on means-tested benefits, totalling £900 through 2023-24. Those entitled do not need to apply for the payment or do anything to receive it. The payments will be accompanied by a payment of £150 for people on eligible disability benefits this summer and a payment of £300 on top of winter fuel payments for pensioners at the end of 2023.
These are carefully designed interventions, targeted at the most vulnerable across communities in the United Kingdom. The latest payment follows on from the £650 cost of living payment delivered to households on means-tested benefits by the Government in 2022, with an additional £150 for individuals on disability benefits and £300 for pensioner households.
The Government of course need to recognise that some people will fall into difficulties. They have enabled local authorities to provide additional support with the cost of household essentials through a 12-month extension to the household support fund in England worth £1 billion, including Barnett funding. We are also ensuring that more than 10 million working-age families will see an increase in their benefit payments from April 2023, based on the September inflation figure of 10.1%.
While we shelter the most vulnerable, the public also rightly expect us to look further to the future, making sure we are taking steps to grow sustainably and securely in the long term. This Government are unashamedly pro-growth, because expanding the productive capacity of the economy is the only way to solve the productivity puzzle, which has dogged us for decades, and improve living standards for all.
One reason we are held back is because a great number of people have left the labour market altogether. As a Conservative, I believe there is virtue in work and getting people into work is the best way to avoid the ills and perils of poverty. There has been an increase of more than 1.5 million working households since 2010, which shows that we are on the side of working families. That includes our new game-changing childcare offer that will entitle working parents in England to 30 hours of free childcare per week, once their child is nine months old, and close the gap between parental leave ending and the current childcare offer.
In addition to making provision on free childcare, the Budget set out to remove barriers for the long-term sick and disabled, for jobseekers and for older people with our pension tax reforms. Part of the plan is welfare reform to support those who have been disengaged from the labour market. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has introduced a White Paper setting out reforms that will support more people who are long-term sick or disabled to try work without any fear of losing their benefits. Other policies that we announced at the Budget will then ensure that those individuals are better supported to stay and succeed in work. Overall, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects the spring Budget package to result in 110,000 more individuals in the labour market by the end of the forecast period.
The UK saw the fastest growth in the G7 over 2021 and 2022. Cumulative growth over the 2022 to 2024 period is predicted to be higher than that of Germany or Japan, and at a similar rate to that of France or the US. We have halved unemployment, cut inequality and reduced the number of workless households by 1 million. We have protected pensioners, those on low incomes and those with disabilities. We are continuing to lay the groundwork for a vibrant, innovative and growing economy that benefits communities and families up and down the country.
Having sat and listened to the shadow Minister—I was not smiling, but reflecting on what I heard—I think it is very unfortunate that the Labour party continues to play politics and snipe from the sidelines without a clear and coherent plan.

Tom Randall: I notice that the Opposition motion refers to freezing council tax; the shadow Minister also mentioned freezing council tax under Labour. However, Labour-run Gedling Borough Council is increasing council tax by 2.98% this year, in spite of the fully costed Conservative amendment that would have enabled a council tax freeze. Does my right hon. Friend agree that whereas Labour’s rhetoric is about freezing taxes, the reality is tax, tax and tax again?

John Glen: Absolutely, and I think the good people of Gedling will come to the right conclusions next week.
What is really clear is that this Conservative Government will get on with the business of resetting the conditions for growth after this enormously difficult period. We are setting the conditions for protecting the vulnerable and delivering for the British people. As a united Government, we remain focused on what really matters for the British people. I urge the House to reject the Labour motion.

Stewart Hosie: I was intrigued by the Chief Secretary’s answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) about forecasts: I think he said something along the lines of “For every fiscal event there’s a forecast, and on many occasions it turns out to be wrong.” That may be correct. Is it not passing strange, then, that the Government’s own fiscal charter, which they announced only six months ago, is based on precisely such a forward-looking view, with forecasts on a five-year rolling basis? I think the Government and the Chief Secretary might want to sort their lines out on that one.
I agree with what the Chief Secretary said towards the end of his speech about boosting productivity, which is a perennial problem. He is absolutely right about that, of course, but he will recall from the OBR forecast and the Red Book that productivity growth does not exceed 1.5% in any year of the forecast period. Whatever plan the Government thought they had, they will need to do a little better.
The Chief Secretary quite rightly mentioned the requirement to get more people into the workforce; I think he mentioned having an extra 110,000 people by the end of the forecast period. That is welcome, but it would be a fraction of 1% of the workforce of 33 million. Again, I think it is a case of “Five out of 10—must do better.”
There is much to agree with in the Opposition motion: the condemnation of the Tory Government and their mismanagement of the economy; the regret that the UK is the only G7 country whose economy has not returned to pre-pandemic levels; and the ambition, which I am sure is shared across the House, to secure sustained growth and good jobs. However, I will focus not on macroeconomics, but on the impact on real people of inflation and the cost of living crisis that many of them face, not least because energy price hikes, inflation, and mortgage and rent increases are continuing to erode people’s standard of living. We certainly know from the November OBR forecast that inflation was set to peak at a 40-year high, and that wages and living standards were set to be squeezed by 7%, wiping out all the growth of the past eight years. By March, the OBR was telling us that real disposable income would fall by nearly 6%. We now know that telecoms prices will rise as well: BT confirmed that its costs would rise by 15% on 31 March, O2 is increasing prices for SIM-only customers by 17%, and TalkTalk will increase its prices for landline and broadband customers by 14%.
Grocery prices also continue to climb. In February the increase reached a new record high of 17.1%, and more recently the prices of some goods have risen by 19.1%, which represents the best part of £1,000 per year per household for the average weekly shop. The prices of essential food items have also risen in recent months. The price of two pints of semi-skimmed milk is up from 92p to £1.37, a 49% increase; a litre of olive oil now costs £7.28, which is a 65% increase over the past year, and the price of vegetables has risen by 31% over the same period. However, inflation does not hit all households equally. It has a particularly dire impact on lower-income households, which spend a much higher proportion of their incomes on necessities such as food and energy. For some people, it is even worse than that: those with allergies or special dietary requirements are hit even harder. According to analysis carried out by the Allergy Team, people with specific dietary requirements are now paying up to 73% more for food than those who do not need to buy “free from” products at their local stores.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that low-income families simply do not have the resources to go on bearing the cost of soaring inflation. It noted that
“nine in ten families on Universal Credit said they couldn’t afford the essentials in October last year. Since then, inflation has been in double digits”.
Even the Office for National Statistics told us in April that about half the adult population—49%—were worried about the cost of energy or the cost of food. I think that  some of the comments we have heard from Tory Members today spoke volumes. It is almost as if they thought that Tory voters would not be affected by these prices, when half the adult population are worried about the cost of energy or food. I think that they should take notice.
We also know that families are beginning to feel the pain of increased mortgage costs, which, while they may have fallen back a little from the high point last October, are still much higher than they were a year ago; and of course, the central bank has increased the base rate for the 11th consecutive time. Let me put that in context. Nationwide has reported that its standard mortgage rate will rise to nearly 8%—7.74%—on 1 May.
It is rather obvious that, when it comes to the cost of living, the Government should have three urgent tasks. The first is continuing to help families with high energy costs, not by simply freezing the cap—although it is not really a cap at all—but by reducing it from £2,500 to £2,000, as well as maintaining the energy bills support scheme. The second is to bear down on inflation; forcing down energy prices would help with that, as it did last year. Thirdly, as this was mentioned earlier, when it comes to the elements that are under the Government’s control—the next round of public sector pay awards, benefits, the minimum wage and pension settlements—they should ensure that no one falls further behind, and should introduce fairness into the system to pay for it. As the motion says, it could be paid for by a meaningful windfall tax, the ending of non-dom status, the taxing of share buy-backs, and the scrapping of costly vanity nuclear projects.
That is not to say that there is no support from the UK Government—the Chief Secretary referred to some of it, which he rightly described as targeted—but it would be helpful for them to look at the efforts made in Scotland and the range of additional measures that have been put in place there. The Scottish child payment has been further expanded to all eligible six to 15-year-olds. It has increased to £25 a week, and 387,000 children are now forecast to be eligible this year. The various family payments, including the Scottish child payment, could be worth around £10,000 by the time an eligible child turns six, compared with around £1,800 for comparable families in England and Wales. There are more free school lunches during term time for all pupils in primaries 1 to 5, which is the most generous free school meals offer in the UK, saving families on average £400 a year per child.
We have doubled the fuel insecurity fund to support people at risk of self-disconnection or self-rationing of energy. The new winter heating payment that replaces the Department for Work and Pensions system will provide a stable, reliable annual payment, helping 400,000 people. We are maintaining investment in the Scottish welfare fund at £41 million this year, and continuing to invest in discretionary housing payments, with £84 million this year. We are also continuing to provide funding to deliver the council tax reduction scheme. So it is obvious that this Government can, and now should, do more.
Of course, the inflationary pressures that have driven the cost of living crisis are not there by chance. They are not all a consequence of external shocks, and they are  not all a result of covid or of Ukraine. The inflationary elephant in the room is Brexit. The London School of Economics has said that
“by the end of 2021, Brexit had already cost UK households a total of £5.8 billion in higher food bills”.
Last year, as prices were rising steeply, the former Bank of England policymaker Adam Posen insisted that 80% of the reason why the UK has the highest inflation of any G7 country was the impact of Brexit on immigration and the labour market. Even the Harvard Economics Review has stated that Brexit
“can be seen as the guilty culprit in Britain’s inflationary crisis.”
I agree with this criticism of the Government. I agree that we should seek higher sustainable growth, but until the inflationary impact of Brexit is even recognised, it will be impossible to fully address the cost of living crisis that so many of our constituents are facing.

Nigel Evans: We will, I am afraid, have to start with a four-minute time limit. We will see where we go from there.

Andrea Leadsom: I want to speak very briefly to commend the Government for their efforts, not just over the last couple of years, and not just since the appalling aggression of Putin in Ukraine and the post-pandemic crisis, but all the way back to 2010, when a Conservative coalition Government inherited the biggest mess out. When I was doing a bit of research for this afternoon’s debate, I looked back through the years since 1973. Just look at unemployment. Every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came in. When I looked back, I could see that unemployment continued to fall very briefly following the excellent legacy left by a Conservative Government, but then, inexorably, it crept up again. And under Labour, there was no money left when the Conservatives took office in 2010. That is the start of the story. When we look at what really matters to people and at how young people want a role model and want to learn, get out there and get a good job for themselves, we see that unemployment matters so much. In the United Kingdom now, we have the lowest unemployment figures since the early 1970s—in fact, since 1975.
When we look at growth, yes, at the moment we are challenged, as are all economies around the world, but actually, looking at the facts, the UK was growing faster than any economy in the G7 over the last three years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said. Last year, only the UK had growth of 4%; Germany’s was 1.8%. It is easy for the Opposition to talk about the cost of living crisis and what the Conservative Government have done wrong, but they are not looking at the big picture. They should look at our trade policy. The UK has left the EU, and what are we able to do? We can turn to what is predicted to be the fastest-growing area of the world: Asia. We can expand our global trade and be an advocate for global free trade. There is an opportunity for all nations to rise on the back of more global trade. For so many years, the Opposition tried to scupper the will of the people, as expressed in the Brexit referendum, by preventing us from leaving the EU. Instead, we are now free to form our own trade policy and to trade with the rest of the world, which is fantastic.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for whom I have a lot of time, talked about pensions and the difficulties for people in the UK. I wanted to intervene to ask her about the Leader of the Opposition. Bearing in mind that he had legislation to protect his own pension—with no lifetime allowance, can protect his family as much as he likes—will he resile from that? Will he scrap that little statutory instrument, so that he can be in the same boat as the rest of us? Or is it one rule for him and a different rule for the rest of the country? [Interruption.]

Nigel Evans: Order. Mr Elmore, you have a fantastic baritone voice. Save it for singing.

Yvonne Fovargue: This cost of living crisis is “unlike anything we’ve seen”. Those are the words of Citizens Advice, which is truly on the frontline when it comes to the real bread-and-butter problems people face.
We know that the rising cost of essentials impacts those on the lowest incomes the most. I used to talk about bumps in the road—unexpected life events that derail people, such as job loss or bereavement—but increasing numbers of people are simply running out of road. There is more debt and more unmanageable debt, and more demand for advice services. StepChange and Citizens Advice both say that the size and scale of the debt crisis is unlike anything they have seen before.
The debt crisis means more borrowing, too. StepChange has found that people who use credit cards and overdrafts to pay for essentials, as more and more people do, are 10 times more likely to be in problem debt than those who do not. Some 1.4 million people are relying on high-cost credit to cover rent and other household bills.
There is also a relatively new phenomenon: the negative budget. This is when, even after debt advice sessions and budget counselling, a client’s income is not enough to meet their essential outgoings. Half of Citizens Advice clients and a third of StepChange clients are in that predicament. That is particularly worrying because it requires a rethink of how to support the most financially vulnerable. Yes, there are practical measures, but we need to better fund our advice agencies, which are seeing an enormous increase in demand. We have to be careful that this includes provision for face-to-face advice in addition to virtual advice, because people sometimes need to see a trusted adviser before going to another channel.
We need to overhaul the type of debt solutions that advice agencies can offer. I welcome the breathing space that gives debtors respite from their creditors while they get their finances on track. I also welcome the expanded access to debt relief orders and the fresh start that bankruptcy can bring, but the up-front application fees are pricing people out of these options with nowhere to go. Applying for a debt relief order costs £90 and declaring bankruptcy costs £680, and those are up-front fees. They are simply not affordable for people who need such options, particularly those with negative budgets, and we need to consider how to fund them.
We should also be wary of individual voluntary arrangements. Too many people are forced into IVAs without the impartial advice they need to ensure they are the best option for them. In fact, it is probably time  to undertake a full, holistic review of debt solutions. We need a simple, straightforward system that ensures people in debt are always able to access the system that best suits their needs, through independent, impartial advice that is suited to the individual. Such a review must look at enforcement, as the use of bailiffs is far too widespread. I was pleased to sponsor the launch of the Enforcement Conduct Board, but it needs to be put on a statutory footing. It is vital that creditors have to use a bailiff that is accredited by the ECB, and that includes central and local government, who are some of the worst offenders.
There is no easy solution to the cost of living crisis, but for those who have reached the end of the road and can see no way out of their debt, we need to move from temporary fixes and piecemeal solutions to a long-term, sustainable plan.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: I call Angela Richardson.

Angela Richardson: Thank you for calling me to speak so early in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The fact is that unprecedented international conditions have led to instability in our economy. Given the global world in which we live, any international crisis can and will have an impact at a national level sooner or later. I am proud that the UK has long been at the forefront of work to forge an international system characterised by stability and co-operation. This Government have always taken very seriously their responsibilities as a member of the G7, the G20 and the Commonwealth of Nations. This Government proudly took on the leadership of COP26 and rallied the world’s Heads of State and Government to take action on climate change.
Despite all those commendable efforts, there are some things that this or any other Government cannot predict or control. The Government cannot predict when a potentially deadly virus will cause a pandemic; they cannot control when a dangerous autocrat marches his troops into a neighbouring country; and they most definitely cannot control the weather. However, when listening to the Labour Front Bencher’s speech, one got the sense that had Labour been in power there would, magically, have been no pandemic, war or adverse weather. The public are listening and they are not stupid. They have experienced those things with us and they will not be taken in by what the Opposition say.
From the covid pandemic to Putin’s senseless war in Ukraine, and bad weather conditions in north Africa and Spain, this Government have been tested time and again. Our constituents across the country are feeling the squeeze caused by those events, but this Government have been there to help them deal with the burden of high energy bills, soaring inflation and uneven food availability. Actions always speak louder than words, and the actions of this Government are clear: we have provided £94 billion in cost of living support, helping the most vulnerable in our society; the energy price guarantee has been extended for three months; and three cost of living payments totalling £900 are going directly into the bank accounts of those on means-tested benefits, starting today.
But what about the words? The words of Labour’s motion are nothing but a smokescreen for its past and present lack of grip on the economy. The party that casually left a note saying that there was “no money left” now criticises the Conservative Government who have grown our economy at a faster rate than those of France, Japan and Italy since 2010, and at the same rate as Germany since the Brexit referendum. The party under which youth unemployment rose by nearly 45% criticises the party under which the total unemployment rate has fallen to a near 50-year low. When it comes to the economy, it is only the Conservative party that the British people can trust. The Labour party has never left government with unemployment lower than when it took office or with the economy on a better footing.
Even in opposition, Labour advocates for the same disastrous recipe of unfunded spending commitments and yet more borrowing. So far, the bill that Labour would saddle taxpayers with stands at £90 million in spending commitments that are plucked out of thin air—that is roughly £3,000 per household. All that comes with a good serving of borrowing, to the tune of £28 billion each year until 2030.
Going back to the motion before the House, I advise the Labour party to get on with understanding the people’s priorities and how the economy actually works. Labour should stop using the non-dom tax status as a cheap political attack under the guise of economic policy and stop going on about a windfall tax, which this Government introduced last May and increased as part of the autumn statement last November.

Peter Dowd: Listening to the Minister, I get the distinct impression that Labour’s Front Benchers and Labour colleagues more generally are simply making things up; it is as though the cost of living crisis does not exist. But I know that the cost of living crisis is getting worse as the days go by and that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to afford even the most basic consumables. I am sure that the Minister can afford to pay attention to this, even if he cannot afford much else under his Government’s mess. I did expect a bit more originality from him in explaining away the crisis. It is now getting pretty tedious listening to the same old claptrap about global headwinds, international disruption, the impact of the war in Ukraine, supply line challenges due to this or that, or the covid landscape.
There was no mention of the Government’s part in the debacle. The Government—not a Cameron Government, not a May Government, not a Johnson Government, not a Truss Government, not even a Sunak Government, but a Tory Government—have been in office for 13 years. I know that it feels much longer than 13 years, but does the Minister grasp that at all? He seems to think that the previous four Administrations have nothing to do with the current Administration. Well, I have a bit of unwelcome news for him: they do.
The Minister may be surprised to learn that we have had seven Chancellors of the Exchequer since 2010, which is, on average, about one every two years. If we put the six-year chancellorship of George Osborne aside, we have had, on average, a new Tory Chancellor  every 12 months. The Minister may be even more surprised to find out that they have all been Tory Chancellors—yes, all seven of them. In fact, I will let him into a little secret: the current Prime Minister used to be one of them.
Does the Minister not think that such lack of continuity, on top of the general incompetence, may have had a bearing on the current parlous state of the economy? Does he not think that such an environment of chaos has had a bearing on the cost of living crisis? Does he seriously expect us to believe that the Government’s actions have made things better? Does he seriously expect us to swallow the narrative that all this financial, fiscal and economic entropy was foisted on an otherwise competent coterie of Tory Chancellors who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time over a period of 13 years?
Between them, that list of failed Chancellors broke their own fiscal rules at least 11 times, if I recall rightly. Has that not had anything to do with the current cost of living crisis? Have cutting housing benefit, bringing in the bedroom tax, freezing child benefit and making changes to tax credit not had a bearing on the cost of living crisis? What about the 10-year virtual freeze in public sector pay? How about the cuts to schools or the justice system? It goes on and on, but the Government will take no responsibility whatsoever for it.
What about the issue of debt? The Minister should be unsurprised to learn that Tory Governments have been responsible for the bulk of all Government debt—a debt currently standing at £2.5 trillion. They claim to be the party of sound finance, but they are not. They have managed to pay back 0.5% of all the money they have borrowed. They say they are the party of economic confidence. That is a joke.

Robert Syms: Nobody should be terribly surprised that we face difficult economic times if a Government lock an economy down for nearly two years; if they pay 7 million, 8 million or 9 million people to sit at home; if they provide grants to keep companies in business; and if they intervene on an unprecedented level. Indeed, the intervention to get us through the worst pandemic since 1918 was almost on the scale of a world war. The Government are to be commended for doing what they did to save lives.
Following that, we have had a major economic crisis and war in Ukraine. That has caused an almost unprecedented spike in energy prices. The last time they rose as much was in 1974. Both those factors have had a big effect on Governments, businesses and individuals. The Government have done an awful lot to try to safeguard people’s living standards. They have provided a cap on energy prices, they have provided a £400 grant, they have put the pension up by 10.1%, they have put benefits up and they are providing special payments. Billions have been spent on supporting people, and that is quite right in an extraordinary time.
Of course we can always have a political argument about whether we should do more or do less, but the most important point is to have an economic policy that gets us through the immediate crisis and into better times when the sun will shine. The good news is that in the course of this year, inflation is expected to fall  substantially. We already see a fall in input price inflation figures, and a fall will come through in food prices and energy prices in the course of the year.
There is a debate about whether we will have 2% or 3% inflation, but given that it looks from the negotiations as though pay will go up a little bit, it is clear that inflation will fall below the level of pay increases sometime this summer. We will then have a situation where living standards start to recover. I do not pretend that people will immediately turn round and say, “This is great!”, because it takes several months for people to feel that that has happened, but we are heading towards a situation where the big reductions in living standards that have taken place over the last 12 months, and which have understandably made my party unpopular and made the public mood very scratchy, will start to reverse.
Through sound financial policies, the Government have done their best to keep a stable economy and set us on a path for growth. Looking at the public sector finance figures today, I hope that, when it is prudently responsible to do so, we will increase incentives by reducing tax. That in itself will help some of those who are struggling.
I think the Government are on the right track. I have no doubt that this is a difficult time for many of our constituents, but I do not think anybody can complain that we have not done what we can. I look forward, over the next three, six and 12 months, to a better economic situation. Ultimately, the argument that we are having on the Floor of the House is this: if people feel miserable and badly off, they will vote us out of office, and if they feel that things are going better, they may well vote us back in. I am optimistic.

Vicky Foxcroft: I wish we did not need this debate, but unfortunately, as all Opposition Members know, the cost of living crisis is biting harder than ever. As we have heard, under the Conservatives, food prices have risen at the highest rate for more than 45 years. I want to speak today about the implications of that for disabled people and those with long-term health conditions.
Depending on the nature of their disability, some people have difficulty preparing certain foods and rely on pre-prepared or convenience foods, which frequently works out more expensive than buying raw ingredients. The price of ready meals rose by almost 22% in 2022. If, for example, someone has difficulty standing or sitting for long enough to prepare a meal from scratch, they may feel that they have no choice but to pay those prices.
Rising food costs are also a huge source of concern for those on specialist medical diets. In a report published last month, Coeliac UK revealed that a gluten-free weekly shop can be up to 20% more expensive than a standard shop. For example, the cheapest loaves of gluten-free bread cost more than seven times the standard equivalent.
Even before the pandemic and the current cost of living crisis, disabled people faced extra costs of £583 per month on average—the so-called disability price tag. Scope is set to reveal an updated figure tomorrow, which I understand is substantially higher. I can confirm that the new statistics show that the extra cost of disability is equivalent to 63% of household income after housing costs. If, for example, a non-disabled  household spends £100 per week on their food shop, an equivalent disabled household will need an additional £63. Again, even before the cost of living crisis, people with coeliac disease and those with other specialist diets faced higher prices when accessing essential foods.
When the price of everything has risen so substantially and there are fewer opportunities to shop around, it follows that those who are already at the sharp end will be hit hardest. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a shocking disparity. I hope to hear in his concluding remarks that he will pay close attention to Scope’s announcement tomorrow on the disability price tag, and lay out a clear plan to alleviate the financial pressure on the people hit hardest, first by covid and now by the cost of living crisis.

Simon Baynes: I take this issue very seriously. Clearly, families across the country are feeling the pinch at the moment. We in this House are all keen to address the issue in a constructive and sympathetic manner.
I am delighted that 9,100 families in Clwyd South will receive £301 from the Government as the latest cost of living payments begin to be sent out today. That cost of living payment is being made to more than 8 million families on means-tested benefits across the UK. It is the first of three cost of living payments that will, together, total £900. Some families will receive £1,350 of support. Those payments will be accompanied by a £150 payment for people on disability benefits, and a £300 payment for pensioners at the end of 2023, on top of winter fuel payments.
That is part of a much larger programme by the Government to support vulnerable people in these difficult times. Indeed, the cost of living package to help the most vulnerable has been worth £94 billion. A key part of this is addressing inflation. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, we expect inflation to halve by the end of this year, so the issues that we have at the moment and to which the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) referred will mitigate themselves, and we will see inflation come down later in the year.
I am proud to represent a Government who, in these difficult times, have gone out of their way to support people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) said in his excellent speech. I will not go back over the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine, but as he said, those issues put exceptional pressure on the UK economy, and Labour Members need to take that on board and at least acknowledge it in their remarks, which, so far, they seem not to have done.
We have to be realistic about what we can do to help people in a time of crisis. I am pleased that we are extending the energy price guarantee, at £2,500, for three months from April to July, which will help families to save an average of £160 on their energy bills. The extension means that, thanks to Government support, families will have saved £1,500 on their energy bills since October 2022. I strongly support a number of other measures: the uprating of benefits and the state pension in line with inflation protects the most vulnerable households; freezing fuel duty for a 13th consecutive year saves the average driver about £200; extending our household support fund to more than £2 billion ensures that local authorities can support the most vulnerable  in their communities; raising the national living wage by 9.7% increases wages by an average of £1,600 for 2 million low-paid workers. Those measures will support the most vulnerable in our society.
I intervened earlier on the Labour Government’s record on unemployment between 1997 and 2010. During that period, the number of unemployed people increased from 2.1 million to 2.5 million, and there was a 45% increase in youth unemployment. As we have seen in a number of comments—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I call Alex Davies-Jones.

Alex Davies-Jones: The central issue that we are debating is very simple; there is a very simple question to address: after 13 years of Conservative rule in Westminster, do our constituents feel better off than before? [Interruption.] Exactly. I know from talking to residents and people across my constituency of Pontypridd and Taff Ely, and from being on the doorstep across the UK in the past few weeks, that the answer is a clear and resounding no. Across the country, every single family has felt the impact of what the Trussell Trust and many others have described as a cost of living emergency. When we look across all the indicators, it is no wonder, with inflation reaching a four-year high, an average family’s weekly food shop up over £700 this year, and the essentials of housing, fuel and power up almost £1,500 on average. All the while, real wages have stagnated and Britain has slipped behind other developed nations—all of this on the Conservative Government’s watch.
The Government have completely failed to get a grip on the crisis, while the human cost continues to be utterly devastating. Nowhere is that more apparent to me than in my own patch in the south Wales valleys, where, according to data from the Office for National Statistics, residents in my local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taff report life-quality indicators lower than the UK average, including on life expectancy, happiness, the local employment rate and disposable household income. All of that is thanks to more than a decade of inaction by this incompetent Tory Government.
Let us be clear: as the cost of living crisis continues to rage, regional inequality is deepening by the day. So much for levelling up—we are not even levelling equal. Our incredible local authority, together with the Welsh Labour Government, as I have said, are moving heaven and earth to do what they can to help people in these exceptional circumstances, including with RCT’s regular food support grants to our local food banks. Those grants, together with the amazing food bank volunteers, are a lifeline to thousands of my constituents, who need support now more than ever. Sadly, the RCT area saw a 14% rise in food bank usage in the last year. Despite local efforts, the UK Tory Government continue to sit on their hands by not granting devolved nations the proper support they need and people in Wales are being let down.
I am immensely proud that our local food bank collected an incredible 16,000 kilos of food donations from generous shoppers at local supermarkets in the last year, but it is an indictment of the UK Government’s  failures that my constituents have had to step in where the Government have failed. While the UK Tory Government desperately attempt to shift media coverage from the realities—they gloss over the fact that they crashed the economy last September—we all know the truth. The cost of living crisis is far from over. Later this week, I will host a dedicated cost of living event for my constituents in a local community centre in Rhydyfelin because these issues are ongoing. They are all too real and felt all too keenly. Again, it is a heavy indictment of the UK Government that my team and I have received so many messages from terrified constituents unable to feed themselves or pay their bills. That is why it is absolutely right that colleagues have focused on the impact of the cost of living crisis on individual consumers, households and families.
Another heartbreaking consequence of this crisis is that, with people spending less, inevitably businesses are suffering, too. In my constituency, we are fortunate to have some incredible independent businesses and our high street is thriving. I am shocked, however, by the responses from businesses on this issue. They cannot cope with the rising cost of energy bills or business rates. They are struggling to support themselves and, when our businesses struggle, our local economy struggles, too.
I could go on, but sadly we are limited for time. We must move beyond a sticking plaster for our economy and embrace real, ambitious change to ease the cost of living crisis and unlock economic growth. After 13 years of failed Tory rule, it is clear that only a Labour Government in Westminster are capable of that change.

Ben Spencer: Yet again, in the face of the serious challenges that we and many other nations face, Labour chooses to play politics. The pressure on households is real, but does the Labour party really believe that economic issues are defined by national borders? For example, UK food inflation in March was 19.1%. The EU average at the time was slightly higher, at 19.2%. Several EU countries face much higher inflation, including food price inflation of up to 44.8%. The International Monetary Fund shows that the UK inflation rate is the same as Sweden’s, and only slightly higher than Germany’s.
Do the Opposition really believe that this is solely a national issue? They seem to forget that we have had a pandemic, war in Europe and a resulting energy crisis. Our Conservative Government did not cause any of those, but they did respond, not by playing politics or by pointing fingers, but by delivering for people and protecting households. When people needed help, we provided covid support to households and businesses, the largest increase in benefits and the state pension for 32 years, direct support with energy bills for every household, and direct cash payments of at least £900 to the most vulnerable households. We lowered the universal credit taper rate, increased the minimum wage and froze fuel duty, and we are now investing in more affordable childcare so that parents can return to work knowing that their children are getting a great start in life, too. But unlike Labour, we do not simply spend with no plan for tomorrow: we work to rebalance our economy after each shock. That is why we have a plan to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt. We are supporting  research and development and promoting the UK as the future for life science and STEM industries. We are leading on green energy and carbon capture, and delivering new jobs and investment through freeports and investment zones.
Not only are we helping nationally, but well-run local authorities such as Runnymede Borough Council are delivering excellent services and administering direct financial support while maintaining low council tax. I am pleased by the timing of this debate, as it highlights what is at stake in the upcoming elections. If people want good governance and support locally, tackling the challenge of inflation, they need to vote Conservative on 4 May. The Conservatives have a clear economic plan; Labour only has a soundbite.

Emma Hardy: I wonder whether Government Members need to work on their lines a bit because they seem to be saying, “There was nothing we could do—there has been a war in Ukraine and covid.” That leads us to ask, what is the point of them really if there is nothing they can do when there is a pandemic and when our country is in need?
The defining question for people to hold in their minds as they vote in the election is this: “Do I really want another five years of this?” In everything, in every way, the 13 failed years of Conservative Government and Lib Dem coalition rule—the Lib Dems do seem to forget that they were part of it for five years—have failed our country and prevented us from reaching our potential. If growth had continued at the same rate as it did under a Labour Government, we would have an extra £40 billion for our public services.
But what makes me really angry about this Government is the way in which they have made too many people feel like this is as good as it gets, that we do not deserve to have good public services, or that good public services are beyond our reach. In the next elections, they are relying on people giving up hope—hope that our country can be so much better than it is today.
When Labour left office, public satisfaction in the NHS was the highest it had ever been. We were so proud of our achievements in the NHS that, in the 2012 Olympics, we put it on show for the whole world to see. That was how much we celebrated it, but not only have this Government broken our NHS—they are revelling in breaking the people who are working for it. They are telling working people in this country that their ambition to not just survive, but actually live a life, is beyond their reach, however small they may think it is. They tell them instead, “No, strive instead for 30p meals. That is as good as you are going to get under this Government—30p for your meal and that is it.”
If people want more than that, that is when all the cheerleaders will have a go. If they want to work with their trade unions to fight for a better salary so they can afford a bit more to eat, that is unreasonable; it is so unreasonable that this Government introduced legislation to stop workers being able to come together to fight for the salaries that they actually need. When we look at our international comparators, we see that the French are 10% richer and the Germans are 19% richer, and that is a result of this Government. They are continuing to fail us. Our country is seeing what happens when  low-paid workers are told by this Government, “Go and get another job.” Well, they are going to go and get another job in adult social care, and look at what has happened there.
The last Labour Government achieved so much: the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s, low mortgage rates, the national minimum wage, 14,000 more police in England and Wales, a cut in crime of 32%, child benefit up by 26%, 36,000 more teachers and 274,000 more support staff. That is what the last Labour Government achieved. This Conservative Government can judge the Labour party on our record, and on 4 May, the public will judge the Conservatives on theirs. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I will save it for next time.

Jerome Mayhew: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) is right to feel empathy and sympathy and to feel angry for the people challenged by the cost of living, as everyone in this House does, whatever side they are on. Families are struggling right across the country and that is because of inflation, which steals money from everyone’s pockets. The best cure for all the issues we have all been discussing on either side of the House is to deal with inflation, yet in its 12-line motion on the cost of living, Labour has not made any mention at all of the Government’s intervention to reduce the level of household inflation. It is as though the Opposition are not aware of the £94 billion package that the Government have instituted over the last period. That is an average of £3,300 of Government support per household, which is having a direct impact on reducing the headline level of inflation. It includes halving people’s energy bills over this winter at an average of £1,500 of support per household. That has been extended to the summer, when prices are forecast to come down.
There is an enormous irony that we are having this Opposition day debate on the cost of living, on a motion with no mention of Government support, on the very day when £301 has landed in the bank accounts of the 8 million most-vulnerable families in the country through the household support fund. However, the motion does have some positive suggestions to make. It suggests we should freeze council tax. The best way for people to ensure that their council tax is frozen is to vote Conservative on 4 May. People should come and look at my council in Norfolk, Broadland District Council, which has frozen council tax not for one year, but for the past two years. If Labour councils were serious about helping people with the cost of living, they would run their councils just as efficiently as we do, and they would keep their council tax down and freeze it.
The other thing that the Opposition have done today is to have the first Opposition day debate on water infrastructure, yet in that debate, the effect of what they were arguing for with their so-called plan would have had the effect of increasing water bills by a full £1,000 a household. Is that joined-up opposition? I do not think so. What we have is the Conservatives giving £3,300 of support per household and freezing council taxes more often than not in Conservative-run districts such as my own, against Labour which, through its policy requirements, is saying we should increase bills by £1,000 and have higher council taxes in areas they represent. The best solution to the cost of living crisis is to halve inflation,  grow the economy and reduce debt while supporting the most vulnerable in our society. Those are the priorities of my constituents and constituents right around the country, and they are the priorities of this Government.

Ian Byrne: I would like to raise the terrifying consequences of the declining living standards experienced by my constituents in West Derby and by people across the city of Liverpool. One third of the people in my city are now in some kind of food poverty. Two thirds of my constituents are having to cut back on hot water, heating or electricity. The crisis was not inevitable; it has been fuelled by political choices—the political choice of Tory Governments to privatise our utilities and infrastructure; the political choice to allow profiteering in supermarkets and the oil and gas companies; the political choice of this Government to inflict 13 years of brutal austerity on my constituents; and the political choices to cut our vital public services to the bone, to decimate the social safety net and state pension, to strip away workers’ rights and to create a crisis of insecure contracts and low pay. The Government’s political choices have destroyed the services that can be the difference between life and death for many of my constituents in these times of crisis.
The rise of 19.2% in the price of food in the past year is the highest since 1977, and it is alongside the sharpest fall in real wages since 1977. The Resolution Foundation calculated that had wages continued to grow as they were before the financial crash of 2008, the average worker would make £11,000 more a year than they do now, taking rising prices into account—imagine where we would be. Recently, the Food Foundation reported that child food poverty has doubled in a year: 3.7 million children—one in five—have eaten less, skipped meals or gone without meals for an entire day. We are in danger of losing a generation of children through no fault of their own. Those who will shape the future of our nation will not reach their full potential because of the preventable scourge of hunger.
It is a disgraceful injustice that many of my constituents and so many children across this country are in this situation, yet at the same time inflation has been fuelled by “greedflation”, with supermarkets, food manufacturers and shipping companies protecting shareholder dividends by giving extra lifts to prices. Unite the union has highlighted:
“Despite the rise in wholesale prices, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda still managed to increase their profits by an astonishing 97% in 2021.”
At a recent sitting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we heard evidence from the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, who told us:
“Corporations have a significant amount of power in markets”,
but
“Governments have tools in place to stabilise prices.”
In West Derby, there are nurses, educators, firefighters, postal workers, rail staff and civil servants all using food banks. This is one of the most grave and frightening crises we have seen in our lifetimes. The situation simply cannot go on, so I ask the Minister to intervene now to support my constituents and services in West Derby, and curb the selfish profiteering by some companies in the food supply chain and energy industry.
I also call on the Minister to make food a legal right for all, to enshrine the right to food in legislation, and to end the scandal of hunger and food banks once and for all, beginning by providing universal free school meals for every primary and secondary pupil in state education. Let us heed this evidence, and invest in our communities and our children. We do not need sticking plasters and tinkering around the edges. We need the kitchen sink throwing at this dire situation for millions to transform the future of our nation. We should demand nothing less and settle for nothing less.

David Johnston: The cost of living is the No. 1 issue that comes up on doorsteps. That is why it is so important the Government are working on their plan to reduce inflation by at least half, and it looks as though it is going to come down by a lot more than that. Today is a good day to have this debate, because it is the day that 8 million people—actually, more than 8 million people—will get the first instalment of the £900 cost of living payment, including nearly 9,000 people in my constituency.
There is a lot in this motion, from economic growth to wages, taxes and energy. I will try to skip through as many of those as I can, beginning with economic growth. In every year since 2010 until we hit the pandemic, the economy grew. It grew by 19.2% during that period, with the third highest growth in the G7. We saw during that period, until the pandemic, fantastic employment figures as well. When Labour left office in 2010, unemployment was 8%, and it is now less than 4%. We saw the equivalent of 1,000 people being added to the workforce every single day in that period up to 2019. On youth unemployment, which is of particular interest to me, Labour left office with it at over 20% and it is now also at a historical low.
On wages, the national living wage since 2016 has seen an average of £5,000 go into people’s annual wages. The Labour party does not want to talk about pensions in this motion, which is okay, but I will just note that this Government’s triple lock policy has added £2,300 to the value of the state pension, and we must not forget the important role that plays for pensioners with the cost of living.
On taxes, I welcome Labour to the cause of being concerned about taxes being too high. It is not their record in government, but better late than never. We have doubled the personal allowance to more than £12,500 on which people pay no tax whatsoever. This motion says that Labour wants to freeze council tax. I doubt its local authorities would be supportive of that. However, leaving that to one side, there is this awkward fact that in the 13 years of this Government so far council tax has gone up by 36%, but in the 13 years of the Labour Government it went up by 110%. It is easy to be in favour of council tax and everything else being lower when a party is not in power, but it is slightly harder when it has to make such decisions.
Turning to energy prices, through the combination of the rebate and the energy price guarantee, families have been saved £1,500 on their energy bills since October. This is a huge investment by a Government to help keep down the cost of living, paid for by a windfall tax that the Labour party says it wants to extend. It is already  going until 2028, so we have taken the action that Labour is just talking about all the time, pretending that we have not done so already.
The Prime Minister wants the country to take maths more seriously, and I think he is right. Maths is important for people in the labour market. I have never asked him, but I have a feeling that maths is always in his mind, because when he sits on the Front Bench, he looks across at a sea of Labour MPs who do not take maths seriously at all. Every week we are told that if we end non-dom status, put VAT on private school fees and use the windfall tax, we can pay for whatever our hearts desire—childcare, council tax, freezing energy bills, free breakfast clubs, whatever we like. That is totally unserious. There is no greater example of the anti-maths mindset than the Labour party, and as usual its sums do not add up.

Florence Eshalomi: In terms of maths, no matter how far a number of my constituents try to make the pennies stretch, they are just not stretching enough. Families’ incomes continue to go down and costs continue to go up. That is the reality of the Tory Government. The cost of living crisis has been going on for some time, and it is important that we do not talk about it as something normal and something we should accept. Every day I see that with my constituents, who are so desperate with nowhere to go. We see it in our casework and our advice surgeries. Household incomes are being squeezed. To put that in context, food prices are going up 50% faster than elsewhere in the G7, putting Britain’s food inflation rate at a staggering 19.2%. That is not some abstract maths figure from economists; that is felt in people’s weekly shop. When people go to the supermarket, they find that the price of sugar is up by 42%, milk is up by a third, and pasta by a quarter. Those are basic food items that families need to survive. That is the maths they are struggling with when they struggle to pay for this cost of living crisis.
I want to highlight the impact of this crisis on young people, which far too often we forget. We talk about young people being the future, but a number of them are struggling to live day to day. They are struggling with zero-hours contracts. We see the claims about youth unemployment going down, but these young people are in insecure jobs—Deliveroo jobs. That is not aspiration. That is not what I want for young people in Vauxhall. I want them to have long-term careers, not insecure jobs, yet that is the reality behind the figures that Conservative Members keep citing.
I am proud to represent Vauxhall. On my visits to schools and youth centres I seebold and passionate-thinking young people, but a number of them feel that politics is not for them, does not speak to them, and that the economy is skewed against them. The sad reality is that they are right. Instead of the Government getting behind votes at 16, votes are being supressed next month with the introduction of voter ID. Why are the Government so scared of allowing young people to vote? Why?
Figures from Barnardo’s show that one in four young people now live in poverty, and sadly many more face going hungry. Yesterday, children from Stockwell Primary School visited Parliament, and they spoke to me about their worries and concerns. I recently co-chaired an event of the all-party group for London, with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).  We hosted an event with a youth charity, London Youth, to hear directly from young people about what the cost of living crisis is doing to them. We heard how many of them are having to take on weekend jobs alongside their schoolwork, just to support their families who are struggling. We heard stories of young people stepping up to care for their younger siblings, because their parents are having to work more hours because childcare is extortionate. We heard about those young people’s abject lack of hope of being able to move and have secure roots because—guess what?—they cannot afford to buy.
I have spoken about the need for us to end section 20 notices, and the impact that the cost of living crisis is having on insecure housing. If we want our young people to have hope, be successful, and contribute to the economy, we need to support them by not abandoning them, and by not making them suffer through the cost of living crisis. We need to give those young people hope, and that will happen only with a Labour Government.

Rob Butler: In her opening remarks, the shadow Minister asked what planet Conservative Members are living on. I will tell her. We live in the real world, whereas it seems that Labour Members have been living under a rock. We have just emerged from the worst pandemic since 1918, a new disease that killed millions of people globally and as a result saw much of the international economy grind to a halt. That tragedy was compounded by the brutally evil ambitions of President Putin when he launched his illegal and inhumane invasion of Ukraine. Not only has his regime murdered countless innocent civilians; his actions have had a massive impact on energy prices, further adding to the cost pressures experienced globally. And that is just it: this is a global problem—not national, global.
The rise in the cost of living over the past year has impacted on all our constituents. Nobody denies that, least of all the Government. It is surely the very reason why the first of the Prime Minister’s priorities is to halve inflation, which will, in and of itself, bring massive benefit to everybody who is struggling with rising prices and the cost of living. As the late and much-missed Baroness Thatcher said, “inflation devalues us all”. As on so many issues, she was absolutely right.
The good news is that the Bank of England is clear that inflation will fall dramatically this year. Indeed, one of the biggest deflationary tools in the Government’s extraordinary package to help my constituents with the cost of living was the energy price guarantee, which lowered bills for the vast majority of my constituents and the constituents of every single Member in this House. That has helped to curb the inflationary spike caused by what we are seeing day in, day out in Ukraine.
It is not just support with domestic energy on which the Government have helped my constituents. Fuel duty has been frozen for the 13th consecutive year, saving drivers some £200. Let us contrast that with what Labour is doing for people who drive. We need look no further than the Mayor of London. He is costing my constituents money with the ill thought through imposition of his new ultra low emission zone tax. People from Aylesbury who need to drive to parts of outer London for their work or for specialist hospital appointments will now have to pay £12.50 a day for the privilege—no help from the Labour Mayor with the cost of living.
What have we done as a Government? We have come up with a package of support worth £94 billion—an average of £3,300 per household. As we have heard, Conservative Members recognise that we are supporting low-income households with £900 in cost of living payments, the first of which is finding its way into constituents’ bank accounts from today. In Aylesbury, more than 10,000 stand to benefit from that assistance.
Growth and prosperity go hand in hand with improved productivity. That is what my constituents told me on Saturday that they want to see. I am so pleased that the Chancellor has rightly started work in that direction. In time, I would like to see the Government reverse measures on IR35 and reconsider the VAT threshold, because I believe that will help with those ambitions, but it has to come as our economy strengthens following the unprecedented shocks it received in recent times.
Labour offers the prospect of unfunded spending and higher debt. That is not a recipe to help people with the cost of living; it is a recipe for another letter from Labour telling us there is no money left. It is the Conservative party that will provide the short-term help and the long-term policies to enable the British people to enjoy greater prosperity now and far into the future. It is the Conservative Government who are building the stronger economy to help with the cost of living.

Kenny MacAskill: There is a cost of living crisis in energy, food and other aspects. It is all part of a wider age of austerity being imposed on us by the few and inflicted on the many. It is, of course, affected by international matters, acknowledged by Members on both sides of the Chamber, which no Government could ignore. Fundamentally, however, political choices have been made, not just recently but over decades, that are causing the issues and the problem. It is not simply about the plight of the poorest, which I will come on to. The middle class is now being squeezed. I was in a rather prosperous town in my constituency speaking to a minister in a church where most parishioners would think of themselves as being at least on the ladder of prosperity. He was talking about the extent of poverty that people are feeling because mortgages are going up, and the fact that with the lack of increase in their wages, they cannot deal with the additional factors that are squeezing their income.
As well as the poor being impoverished, the middle class is now being impoverished. At the same time, let us remember that Brexit and covid, which the Government say have caused difficulties and plead as an excuse, have created millionaires and billionaires. People on the Government Benches and in the House of Lords have benefited significantly from political choices that have impacted on not just the poorest but the middle class.
My constituency is by no means the poorest part of Scotland. It is an energy-rich and food-rich area with arable land, yet there is food and energy poverty, which is shameful. The situation of food poverty was brought to my attention by the local food bank, which sent an email on 17 April saying:
“It’s been a busy start to the year”.
Let us remember that we are not even one third into it. It continues:
“we’ve already sent out 1500 emergency food supplies to 3647 people supporting 1210 households in East Lothian. Last month…saw the highest demand ever for foodbank services with 565 emergency food supplies…1 in 3 people supported were children.”
Two thirds of those referred were people whose income was from benefits or work, but who simply could not make ends meet. That is the situation that we are in. It cannot be blamed simply upon Putin, or weather and other catastrophes. It is down to political choices that have been made, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), said, not simply in recent years with Brexit and covid but by Governments over decades. We have an energy-rich county—East Lothian has Torness power station and offshore wind at Cockenzie and Torness—yet we have fuel poverty to match the food poverty that exists. It is not simply that kids are going hungry—they are going cold. It is absurd, when the volume of energy we need is there in the fuels that exist in our community. It is all down to political choices.
I agree with a lot of the sentiment expressed from the Opposition Benches. This problem has been ongoing for decades. Change will not come in the local elections or in this Chamber. Change can come only when Scotland becomes an independent nation and ends the poverty forced upon our people for generations.

Ben Bradley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, first to recognise the challenging times that we live in. Although Mansfield is increasingly affluent—average incomes have risen—there remain pockets of significant disadvantage and high levels of economic inactivity. In those pockets, poor health, poor housing and being out of the workforce contribute significantly to the challenges. It is not, as Labour would have us believe, a simple case of chucking a bit more money at people to fix it. These are complicated issues.
I am grateful for the wide range of Government support, including direct support for residents in the biggest welfare package in history, as far as I can tell. It includes increases in pensions, the halving of energy bills and the household support fund, which have helped a lot of people. We need to recognise that that is not sustainable. The Prime Minister is therefore right to look at reducing inflation and growing the economy. My community fundamentally needs better-paid jobs rather than subsidies. We need to make inroads into economic inactivity. I have spoken to the Department for Work and Pensions before about devolving powers to our local area to create packages that will support people into work that fits our local needs and priorities. I will see the Secretary of State about that shortly. At the very least, our new combined authority in the region should have the powers that Greater Manchester and the west midlands already have to deliver those packages. I have written to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about that recently.
The Government are supporting growth in our region. Devolution is also an opportunity to boost life chances through jobs and infrastructure. In Mansfield we still have lower-paid employment than elsewhere. Transport links to other areas for jobs and investment, and attracting new jobs in growth sectors such as clean energy and  advanced manufacturing, are key. I have spoken in this place a lot about the £20 billion STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—fusion investment as an example of huge Government investment. Our combined authority will give us the ability to wrap a local skills and education package and transport links around that, so that kids in Mansfield can have amazing opportunities that have not existed in our area for decades. North Nottinghamshire can power the country again. In turn, we can change lives. That is a powerful intervention from the Government to support people.
There are all sorts of great projects across Mansfield, Nottinghamshire and our region, including the freeport, our development company, spherical tokamak for energy production fusion, investment zones and our combined authority and transport projects. We all want bigger, quicker and better support for these projects, but they will sit under our combined authority to help us drive private sector growth and bring funding back into the Treasury, as well as create opportunities, which are important. Rather than talking about doing things, the biggest role for Government in growth is to undo some things in order to help small businesses to get on with business and reduce the regulatory burden.
It is important to clarify Opposition comments about council tax. Residents are reading national leaflets in relation to local elections and getting the impression that if they vote for Labour next week, their council tax will be frozen, which is nonsense. It is highly misleading and almost as if the Labour party is trying to dupe people into believing that. People expect local campaigners and candidates who are worthy of their trust, but in this case Labour is leading people up the garden path. It is important to get that on the record. In truth, the Labour party does not know what the policy will cost or what its impact on public services will be, because it does not understand the issues. That is what residents need to know in a week’s time when they come to vote.
We all want to tackle rising costs, grow our economy and boost opportunities. Through the covid pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and other global events, the Government have continued to support people heavily through some of the biggest welfare interventions in this country’s history. Obviously, that is not sustainable forever but the Prime Minister is right to focus on economic recovery and growth.
Rather than seeking to paint an increasingly bleak picture of Britain, as the Opposition consistently do, and acting as though everybody in our country lives in abject poverty and misery, which does not go down well with most of this country’s voters, this Government are acting to help people who are struggling with the challenges of the cost of living and to boost growth and opportunity. While Labour Members pop up all over the place, pointing fingers and without any ideas of their own, the Prime Minister and this Government are actively supporting my constituents in an unprecedented way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I want to get everybody in, which means that after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.

Yasmin Qureshi: My constituents in Bolton South East, the 38th most deprived constituency in our country, need a Government and a council that will take the necessary steps to support them through the cost of living crisis.
The record of the Government of the last 13 years is clear. They are forcing through a 5% rise in council tax this spring; real wages have been squeezed since 2010; families are poorer than our European neighbours; the chaotic mini-Budget in September 2022 added £500 a month to first time buyers’ costs; food prices in the United Kingdom are up 50% faster than elsewhere in the G7; and we have had 24 tax rises since 2019, meaning the burden on working families is now the highest in 70 years.
Then there is the record of the Conservative council in Bolton, which has been in control since 2019. It failed to even apply to the levelling-up fund and we missed out on the opportunity of £40 million in investment; the urban redevelopment of Crompton Place has been cancelled and housing development on Moor Lane has been downgraded; and Marks & Spencer, a huge employer in Bolton, has announced that it will be leaving our town as it is not feasible for it to continue because of the stalled regeneration.
Meanwhile, the Labour party has a real plan for Bolton South East and for the country at large. We will freeze council tax this year and cut energy bills, paid for through a proper windfall tax on the gas and oil giants that have made billions of pounds in profits. A Labour Government will support small businesses, paid for by an online sales tax, allowing them to lower prices for customers on the high street. Our Treasury team will reverse the Conservative decision to hand the richest 1% of pension savers a £1 billion pound handout. Those are our immediate plans.
This afternoon, we have heard many Members on the Government Benches talk about the financial credibility of a Labour Government and of the Labour party, so I want to take a little journey through time. In 2006, nine years after Labour came into power, the GDP-to-debt ratio was 40.5%. Germany’s was 66.7% and France’s was 64.6%, so we were still doing better than those two countries. In 2008, as everyone knows, there was an economic crash that started with the Lehman Brothers collapse in the USA, and there was a global recession. The then Labour Chancellor borrowed money to save our economy, and everybody knows, if they put their hand on their heart, that he did: he stopped about half a million people losing their jobs and avoided the banking crisis.
Between 1997 and 2010, we also made a record investment in health, in education and in police numbers. Some £19 billion was spent on renovating council homes that had been left in an appalling situation because of years of Conservative government. Let us have no lectures from Government Members about who is financially prudent, bearing in mind that last year their Prime Minister collapsed the entire economy.

Paul Bristow: I want to move away from the sort of tribal politics and tribal speeches that we have heard from Opposition Members. I want to talk about some inspirational people, but before I get  away from partisan points, I think it is worth pointing out that 21,900 households will be £900 better off today as a result of what this Government have done.
I want to talk about the best thing about my city of Peterborough: the people of Peterborough. Last year, in the House of Commons, I brought together people from my city who I call my Peterborough heroes: people who volunteer their time to make their city a better place. I want to talk about some of those people.
I thank people from the Bretton project—people like Miriam Whittam, Rob Fisher and Erin McGuigan, who volunteer their own time to make Bretton a better place and who deserve our recognition. I thank organisations like Gladca, which has existed for 50 years in the heart of my city, supporting people and signposting them to the right services; I thank Yasmin Ilahi and Mr Mohammad Choudhary for all the work that they have done.
I thank Zillur Hussain, who gave thousands of meals to vulnerable people during the covid pandemic and who I took to Downing Street yesterday to say thank you very much. I thank people like Mr Rony Choudhury—[Interruption.] This is important. Opposition Members might not like it, but I am recognising people in my constituency: people like Rony Choudhury, the owner of the Bombay Brasserie, who did exactly the same thing. Perhaps Opposition Members do not think that those people’s contribution is worth while. I thank people like Ed Walker, who runs the charity Hope into Action, which helps prison leavers into stable accommodation. [Interruption.] I do not know why Opposition Members are chuntering from a sedentary position. These people are heroes.
I thank people like Julie Gooding and Sharon Keogh from the Care Zone, which ensures that households have decent furniture. I thank people like Cocoa Fowler, who runs the charity Food for Nought, which provides food banks with food such as soup that would otherwise have been thrown out from supermarkets and which is supporting people. I thank people like Christine Nice, who runs the WestRaven community café and helps her community. I thank people like Erin Lee and Maureen and Jeff Walters from the Thorney food bank; Steven Pettican from the Garden House; and Moez Nathu from the charity PARCA, the Peterborough Asylum and Refugee Community Association. I thank Snow and I thank Petr Torák from the charity COMPAS. I thank Bernadetta Omondi, Faustina Yang and Louise Ravenscroft, who have all helped people in my city.
Opposition Members are dismissing these people as if they do not matter. I suggest that they go into their communities, find heroes and recognise them. They should use their position as Members of Parliament to say thank you to the people who work in their community. The idea that a Labour Government would solve any of these problems, quite frankly, is just insulting.

Ian Lavery: It does not matter how loud Government Members shout and scream, “Crisis, what crisis?”. It does not matter how many times they repeat themselves. This crisis is devastating our communities. It is killing people in our communities. Believe me: the records are there to prove it.
I am not sure whether people have seen the latest television advertisement from Age UK. A lady is sitting in her house. It is so cold that you can see her breath. She is on the phone saying, “I am really worried because I cannot afford to put the heating on. What am I going to do?”. What have we become in this country? What have we become, when that sort of thing is being broadcast on television?
There is poverty in every one of our constituencies. Families sitting around the table of a night-time—people who are working their socks off, working all sorts of hours—are not talking about GDP, RPI, CPI, the G7 or predictions about the financial situation. They are saying, “How can we afford to put the heating on? How can we afford to eat properly? How can I afford to put shoes on the bairns? How can I afford to give them the right sort of clothing for school?”. That is what people are talking about. Government Members can shout, “Crisis, what crisis?”, as loud as they want, but it is alive and kicking in our communities. The police have informed me that theft in my constituency is on the increase, but people are not stealing the normal types of goods; they are stealing to survive. A local GP demanded to see me to tell me that I needed to see how bad some of the conditions are that people have been pushed into because of the Government’s policies. It is frightening, it really is.
Food banks are a Tory invention, of course, but I must say a big thank you to the food banks in my area—Wansbeck Valley, Bedlington, Real Deal and the Biggin Box. Everyone working in them deserves great credit. However, the food banks are drying up; the people who used to donate now want to use food banks themselves. This simply cannot go on.
Child poverty is a huge issue for me. In my constituency, it has gone up by 9.5% in five years, to 35.2%. The fact that there are empty bellies and poorly shod children in this country is an absolute disgrace. We are one of the richest countries in the world; let us use it wisely.

Justin Madders: If wages had continued to increase at just their pre-2008 rate, workers would have been £233 a week better off last year than they are now, and that figure is expected to increase to £304 per week by 2027. There is a yawning chasm between what working people could have benefited from and what they are experiencing now. Imagine what the world would have been like if that wage rise had continued.
It is a staggering fact that average incomes will lag behind those in Poland by the end of the decade if we carry on as we are. Ours is not a poor country—we have one of the biggest economies in the world—but when so many of our citizens have to scrape from day to day just to make ends meet, we have to ask some fundamental questions about why it has gone so wrong. It seems pretty clear to me that the experiment with trickle-down economics has been conclusively proved to be a failure, that the Government can no longer be a bystander in our economic renewal, and that the economic shocks of the past 12 months could have been much more effectively mitigated.
Let us look at what is happening around the world. With his Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden is taking steps to prepare the United States for an extremely challenging future. We have nothing approaching that  scale or that ambition, at least not from the Government Benches, but those of us on the Labour Benches do have ambition. We are ready to face the challenges of global competition and climate change; we are seeking to reduce our dependence on fragile international supply chains with our plans to buy, make and sell more in Britain; we will have a real go at funding the step change in home insulation that is needed for this year’s and every subsequent year’s energy bills; and we will end the chronic disease of low-paid, insecure employment.
It is pretty clear that we need to do more to improve people’s earnings in this country, and one way of doing that is to empower workers to negotiate their terms and conditions through sectoral collective bargaining. Wherever we look in the world, when trade unions are empowered to negotiate on behalf of their members, people’s earnings tend to be higher.
When I look at what my children and their generation are facing, I see their wages continuing to fall behind everyday costs, with endemic job insecurity and companies gaming the system so that they do have any rights, let alone the ability to get on and progress in their chosen fields. More and more of their wages go on meeting the basics of living, which puts into the realms of fantasy the idea that they might be able to save up for a home of their own one day, or even—heaven forbid—save for their retirement. That is not the future that I want for my children, or for anyone’s children. We have to do something to halt the country’s slide into mediocrity, where ambition is stymied before people even start because the way in which the economy is structured means that the bulk of the nation’s wealth never leaves the top rung.
We cannot go on like this, with people working harder but seeing their cash go less and less far so that it becomes a stretch even to pay for essentials, while their tax burden increases and public services continue to deteriorate. If we were still in Europe, we would be the sick man of it. We cannot keep asking people to pay more for less. Something has to change, and it should be the Government.

Marie Rimmer: Families, businesses and the country are struggling. For too long, Government support has been too little and too late. During the pandemic, we would have fared much better if the health service had not had its money cut every year since the Conservatives came into Government. The energy crisis has also had a huge impact on our economy. Britain is the only major G7 economy that is still smaller than it was before the pandemic. The country is going backwards under this Government. Many families are having to fork out an extra £500 in mortgage payments following the disastrous Conservative Budget last year that crashed the country’s economy. This is real money; it is the real lives of our constituents, and people are facing real hardship. This is not an abstract statistic, yet instead of doing something to help families, the Government are cutting funding to councils. Even last year, they introduced stricter eligibility for free school meals.
I have the honour of representing a constituency that spans two councils: St Helens and Knowsley. They are wonderful places with a strong sense of community spirit, but there is no denying that the Conservative  Government’s decisions have taken their toll over the past 13 years and caused real hardship. As they are the second and 22nd least well-off council areas in the country, the offer of support that is too little, too late is being felt by my constituents, particularly the vulnerable people, children and people with disabilities.
In 2010, central Government funding to St Helens was £127 million. This year, it is £11 million. In Knowsley, the second poorest council area in the country, the council’s funding has been cut by £485 per person since 2010, despite the average across the country being £188. It is the second poorest area in the country. These cuts have consequences. Local authorities have duties that they have a legal requirement to fulfil, but even with a council tax rise, services have had to be rationed in many areas. We are raising council taxes during the biggest cost of living crisis in a generation, and working people already face the highest tax burden in 70 years.
The Government should have learned their lesson by now after acting too little and too late over the pandemic and the energy crisis. Families and businesses could be crushed if the Government do not get there quickly enough with the support that is needed, but I doubt they will do it. This is real money that could be in the pockets of our constituents while the cost of the average weekly shop is skyrocketing. The Government need to cut business rates to help revitalise businesses. There is no denying that short-term support is required, but there is also a need for long-term council funding. The fair funding review has been delayed for too long. Who is benefiting? The better-off areas are benefiting at the expense of my constituents—

Rosie Winterton: Order. We need to bring in the last Back-Bench speaker.

Beth Winter: It is exactly 12 months since I conducted a cost of living survey in my constituency. The results were absolutely shocking, with 90% of constituents feeling worse off than in the previous 12 months, 80% struggling to pay their bills and over 80% reporting that their mental health had been impacted by the cost of living crisis. Since then, this Tory Government have done absolutely nothing to ease those pressures, and people’s situations are much worse. The cost of living crisis is a political choice.
In the brief time that I have to speak, I will focus on pay and prices. The cost of living is being driven by inflation exceeding incomes—prices are outstripping pay. Millions of people, particularly in the public sector, are having pay awards imposed on them that are below the rate of inflation, and people are being forced—yes, forced—to go on strike. The Government simply do not care. With inflation outstripping pay, month after month, there is an urgent priority for this Government to inflation-proof pay for the public sector and all workers as a short-term measure in the cost of living crisis. I will continue to stand in solidarity with trade unions seeking that outcome.
Turning to food prices, the Office for National Statistics reported last week that food prices were driving inflation. Food prices have increased 19.2% over the past year, but key staples have increased by much more. The impact of this is clear, as others have said today. Food banks in my  constituency, like those everywhere else in the country, are seeing more and more people arriving for food, including at the food bank where I volunteered for more than 12 months, which has had an astronomical increase in the number of people turning up on the doorstep. This is shameful—shameful—for the Government, and it is why I have felt compelled in the last month to work with our local trades council to raise nearly £2,500 for the food bank, but we should not have to do that in the world’s fifth richest nation. It is an absolute disgrace.
Yet the supermarkets are doing very well. We hear that Tesco has paid more than £1 billion in dividend payments to shareholders when most people in this country are struggling. It is not right that supermarkets continue to make hundreds of millions of pounds in profits at the expense of ordinary households.
I finish with a quote from a constituent, “Why are the rich continuing to get richer in this country while the rest of us suffer? I do not see any point in living. Sadly, as usual, the Tories are deaf and just do not care.” I implore the Government to wake up and listen to the majority of people in this country and take urgent action to address this cost of living crisis.

Abena Oppong-Asare: After 13 years of Conservative Government, do the people of Britain feel better off? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) put it, the answer is a resounding no. Across the country, families and individuals are seeing their bills rise while their pay packet falls, and they are faced with a Government who are only making the problem worse. We must remember that the shocking decisions made over the past year, be it the mini-Budget that crashed our economy or the pension reforms that cut taxes for the 1%, only further entrenched 13 years of failure and mismanagement.
That economic record and the Government’s failure have left the UK exposed to skyrocketing price increases. Working people are facing soaring bills, rising food prices and higher taxes. Meanwhile the Government have inflicted a Tory mortgage premium on first-time buyers that has increased costs by £500 a month for some households, forced a 5% rise in council tax this spring by reducing funding to councils, and introduced a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of pension savers by changing pension allowances. As my hon. Friends have powerfully illustrated, these decisions continue to have a devastating impact on people across the country.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) all talked about how people are worse off after 13 years of Tory Government. Even the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) said that the cost of living crisis is the No. 1 issue on the doorstep. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) talked about how the cost of living crisis is affecting disabled people in such a cruel way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) talked about how the Welsh Government are moving heaven and earth to help constituents. This is what a difference a Labour Government make.
People who walk down a local high street today are likely to see pubs, independent shops or even bank branches shutting their doors as soaring inflation and energy bills make their businesses near impossible to run. They might go into a local supermarket and be shocked at the price tickets accompanying everyday items. The price of eggs is up by a third, the price of milk is up by a third and the price of sugar is up by 42%. And at the end of the street they might see a food bank where local people generously volunteer their time to help members of their community in need.
That is the reality of 13 years of Conservative Government. Hard-working families and individuals are struggling to make ends meet, are having to cut back to only essential spending, and are deciding whether they can afford to take their children on holiday this summer or go out for a meal with friends on their birthday. Businesses, suffering under the weight of price rises, are looking at their balance sheets and having to take incredibly difficult decisions. High streets are on the decline. The fabric of the community is breaking down. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that picture. The UK has lost 6,000 pubs, 4,000 local shops and more than 9,000 bank branches since 2010. The Government have presided over and led that managed decline, and now the UK is right at the bottom of the pack, with dismal growth forecasts and no plan to steady the ship. Instead, despite fast-rising prices, wages are stagnating while the tax burden reaches its highest point in 70 years, with 24 tax rises since 2019—I repeat: 24 tax rises since 2019.
For first-time buyers, the Tory mortgage premium has added up to £500 a month to their bills, as the Conservative mini-Budget wrecked the economy and saw interest rates rise and markets losing confidence. That first step up the ladder as people start a family and settle into the community has been put out of reach. What should be a time of excitement and joy has been reduced to one of anxiety and disappointment, and this is before we consider the impact of the many other tax rises coming down the path. Council tax bills have risen above £2,000 for the first time, with the Government forcing councils to put up rates by reducing their funding, seeing families hit with an average rise of 5.1%. Bills are landing on the doormat while parents hide their fear from their children upstairs.
That is the reality of 13 years of a Conservative Government and the time for change is now. But instead of focusing on the interests of working people, the Chancellor’s main offer has been a tax cut for some of the wealthiest pension savers. While he refuses to take action, it is clear that the British people deserve much better. What is needed is a change of direction. What is needed is a Labour Government—a Labour Government who will create good jobs across every part of the country. We will make Britain a world leader in the industries of the future and ensure that people have the skills to benefit from these opportunities. A Labour Government would today freeze council tax and cut business rates to ease the cost of living crisis, supporting businesses and consumers to thrive. That is the choice facing the country and that is why it is time for a Labour Government.

Andrew Griffith: This is a Government who will always support those who need it the most, a Government on the side of working families and a Government who are implementing generational, landmark policies to get the economy growing and ensure that everyone shares in its success. Just look at the impact of decisions made from the autumn statement 2022 onwards. It shows beyond doubt that Government support for households in 2023-24 provides low-income households with the largest benefit in cash terms and as a percentage of income. In fact, on average, households in the bottom half of income distribution will see twice the benefit of households in the top half, in cash terms. Because of the rises in tax thresholds introduced by successive Conservative Governments, for the first time ever, people in our country can earn £1,000 a month without paying a penny of tax or national insurance.
I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions: my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom); and my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Angela Richardson); for Poole (Sir Robert Syms); for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes); for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer); for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew); for Wantage (David Johnston), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler); for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and for Peterborough (Paul Bristow). They all made salient comments about the support this Government are giving at this time when the cost of living has been rising.
As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reminded us, the best way we can help people get through a period of rising prices is by bearing down on inflation. At the same time, we are cutting debt and growing the economy, which is the best way to lift living standards. But we also know at this time that some people need additional, targeted support. In the face of cost of living headwinds, we demonstrated our values by protecting struggling families with a £2,500 energy price guarantee, one-off payments and the uprating of benefits. Aside from the measures on energy, we made changes that mean the average driver has saved about £200 in total since the 5p fuel duty cut was introduced.

David Linden: The Minister speaks about the support the Government have given in terms of the cost of living payment. Why is it then that, when someone has already been punished with a sanction, the Government punish them twice by not giving them the cost of living payment?

Andrew Griffith: I understand that the hon. Member and his party are not happy campers these days, but we are giving more money per head to households in Scotland than we are in the rest of the United Kingdom, which is why he should get behind the many benefits of being part of this Union. On this very day, more than 8 million families across the United Kingdom will receive in their accounts a £301 cost of living payment from the Government, and that is just the first of three payments that will be made, giving a total of £900 to low-income and vulnerable families.
One measure that touches almost everyone in this country is childcare. In the Budget, we on the Conservative Benches confirmed the biggest expansion of free childcare  in living memory. Our new offer will close the gap between parental leave ending and the current childcare offer. It will reduce costs for parents who can get back to work and make sure that a career break does not become a career end. It will improve the lives of millions of people. It is the right thing to do, but we can only afford to do that because of the fiscal discipline that we have exercised.
I am delighted that, as people go to the polls next week, the Opposition have given them a reminder of where they stand, for which I am grateful. Conservative councils charge £80 a year less than Labour on a band E property. Under the last Labour Government, council tax doubled. Under Labour Wales, it has more than trebled. Not for the first time, Labour says one thing and does another. Its motion today calls for a council tax freeze, and yet, far from freezing, I looked at the increases in every one of the constituencies of those on the Opposition Front Bench: Leeds up 5%; Wolverhampton up 5%; Camden up 5%; Ealing up 5%; Greenwich up 5%. A full house of Labour councils charging the maximum that they are allowed in council tax.
Enough, Madam Deputy Speaker: enough of  the Opposition giving us rhetoric not record; enough  of the economic illiteracy from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen; and enough of these ChatGPT-does-socialism-type speeches that we have heard this afternoon. We should never forget Labour’s record on the economy: working people and your children pay the price. Labour has ditched its rule not to borrow to fund day-to-day spending, so we know its plan to stick billions on the nation’s credit card. [Interruption.] Labour Members can intervene if I am incorrect. No Labour Government have ever left office with unemployment lower than when they came to power. Under the last Labour Government, unemployment rose from 2.1 million in 1997 to 2.5 million by the time they left office in 2010—more people denied the security and the chance in life of a good job.
Finally, let us never forget, when Labour left office in 2010, how the then Chief Secretary wrote—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] What did he write? He wrote:
“Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there’s no money left.”
We are a Government focused on delivering the British people’s priorities. We are making sure that we are helping those in financial strain. We are focused on the future and we are delivering not just for growth that comes when a country emerges from a downturn, but for long-term sustainable healthy growth.
Since the Conservative Government came into power in 2010, we have grown more than major economies such as France, Italy or Japan and around the same as Europe’s largest economy, Germany. We have halved unemployment. We have cut inequality and reduced the number of workless households left to us by 1 million. Output is now higher than pre-pandemic levels. There is still much to do, but we are on track to deliver—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 288.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 0.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government’s action to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt; supports the Government’s extensive efforts to support families up and down the country with the cost of living through significant support to help with rising prices, worth an average of £3,300 per household including direct cash payments of at least £900 to the eight million most vulnerable households; notes the use of a windfall tax on energy firm’s profits to pay around half of the typical family’s energy bill through the Energy Price Guarantee, also notes the fact that the Government has frozen fuel duty for 13 consecutive years to support motorists; welcomes the expansion of free childcare to all eligible parents of children aged nine months to four years old; and notes that Labour will fail to grip inflation or boost economic growth, with their plans for the economy simply leading to unfunded spending, higher debt and uncontrolled migration.

Business without Debate

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, I will take motions 3 and 4 together.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Companies

That the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Definition of Foreign Limited Partner, Protection and Rectification) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts

That the draft Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to Non-Crime Hate Incidents, which was laid before this House on 13 March, be approved.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Question agreed to.

Sittings in Westminster Hall  (2 and 9 May)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 10(2)(b)—
(a) the sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 2 May shall begin at 3.30pm and may continue for up to three hours; and
(b) the sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 9 May shall begin at 11.30am, shall be suspended from 1.30pm to 4.30pm, and may then continue for up to a further three hours.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

City Centre Security Measures and Access for Disabled People

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to have been granted the opportunity to have this debate. The centre of York is a special place. It is one that my community really values, with its amenities and services, its heritage and its friendships. Imagine someone being told that they are no longer allowed entrance. Why? Because they are a disabled person. Disabled not by the debilitative impairment that they have learned to live with, but “dis-abled” because the new security barriers prevent them using the blue badge access on which they depend. For some, alternatives may be found, but if their vehicle is their only means of transport and Motability alternatives do not work for them—or if it is where they store their medicines or equipment, such as a nebuliser, or it is their safe space—then being denied entry takes away their human rights and dignity.
We had these debates decades ago, resulting in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We understand the social model of disability, which is about the barriers—in this case, literally barriers—that prevent people from living their life without detriment. People are now locked out of their city not because they have an impairment, but because of intransigence within the local authority or authoritarians within it not recognising their basic human rights. As if life was not hard enough already, that one moment in the week when they go to the bank or post office, meet a friend for a coffee, or go to church or the cinema is now forbidden. Even the St Sampson’s centre, a specialist social space for older people, is cordoned off. It is discrimination.

Marsha de Cordova: My hon. Friend is making an excellent opening to her speech. Does she agree that a local authority seeking to ban disabled people from being able to access the centre of York amounts, pure and simple, to direct discrimination? It is a breach of their civil and human rights, and if the local authority were to rethink this, it would lift that ban and remove the barriers so that disabled people can freely access the city within which they live.

Rachael Maskell: I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so powerfully, because this is an infringement of somebody’s rights and it is discrimination.
While the UN General Assembly and special rapporteur say that human rights and security are not in conflict, but complement each other, those with a poor knowledge of human rights have set them against each other. Tonight, I want to set the scene in York and say what the Government need to do to uphold human rights while strengthening security, as Labour would.

Jim Shannon: May I commend the hon. Lady, who in her time in this House has been an assiduous and dedicated MP? I think her constituents should be very proud of her actions, and indeed of what she is doing here tonight.
Does the hon. Lady not agree that, while we have come on in leaps and bounds in improving disabled access and taking action to legislate for disabled people, there is a need for greater awareness of disability needs? She has outlined this specific case, which I believe shows discrimination and bias. I hope that the Government and the Minister, who I believe are responsive and sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying, will act to ensure that she gets what she needs on behalf of her constituents.

Rachael Maskell: I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention. We should not have to be having this debate here tonight, but we are, and we are determined to see the ban reversed.
Nice and Berlin witnessed hostile vehicle terrorism in 2016 and Barcelona, Westminster and others in 2017—we will never forget—so, following discussions, the police, the counter-terrorism unit and what is now the National Protective Security Authority believed that York needed protections. The minster was the first out of the blocks, as blocks were literally put around that magnificent cathedral to prevent vehicle incursion. Discussions also suggested that some thoroughfares might present a risk and needed further mitigation. Years passed and nothing happened, so clearly urgency was not apparent. In June 2020, barriers suddenly appeared without any consultation. That was due not to terrorist threats, but to covid and the need for social distancing. No one talked to disabled people. They were locked out by section 18 of the Traffic Order Procedure (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, which provided for a temporary ban for blue badge holders. We were then told by Green party councillors that it was because that was better for the environment, as if disabled people caused climate change and did not also want to save the planet. Then the barriers were for street cafés, to aid covid recovery, as opposed to ensuring that disabled people could spend their “purple pound” in York.
In November 2021, the Liberal Democrat-led City of York Council applied under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for a traffic regulation order, under which a counter-terrorism jurisdiction must
“avoid danger to persons or other traffic using the road.”
Any jurisdiction with any sense would recognise that protecting the environment, the economy, safety and blue badge holder access are not mutually exclusive things, but are complementary. If security was genuinely such an issue, what about all the other inconsistencies, such as the patchwork CCTV, with some cameras switched off, or the commercial vehicle access available when barriers are in place? Why can bollards simply be lifted out of their portals at any time, and why do bin vans sit with engines running? Why do the barriers lift at 5 pm when the streets are crowded, while at 10.30 am, when it is quiet, those barriers are down? I am not questioning the threat; I am questioning the logic.
Before a traffic regulation order is made, a council must comply with statutory requirements set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. Those include a requirement for formal consultation and advertisement, which the council undertook in a short summer consultation period in 2021. More than 200 objections were registered. The  local government and social care ombudsman responded, saying that York’s council had failed to respond to the consultation. Instead, the council argued that because 60% of disabled people had responded in support of the plans, that was sufficient to implement them. Not all respondents lived in York, and the nature of their impairment was not clear. Rather than exploring what mitigation the 40% required, the authority homogenised disabled people. Human rights law makes it clear that majority preferences cannot simply override those of minority groups. In December 2021, The Department for Transport’s best practice guide, “Inclusive Mobility”, was published, but those criteria were not met either. We must take a holistic approach to protecting people, not just through hostile vehicle mitigation, but from damaging infringement on human rights.

Julian Sturdy: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. As a neighbouring MP, I support every point she has put forward. She is right to raise the point about the social isolation this is causing for people with disabilities who need access to our great city and its centre. Does she agree that there is also huge discrimination against rural communities? People from those communities with blue badges who need access to the city centre cannot access it at the moment because they do not have the required public transport. A lot of small rural communities are being left behind because of this policy.

Rachael Maskell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that disabled people are more likely to experience loneliness—13% more likely—and because York is both urban and rural, the people living in communities in his constituency will also experience detriment. As we look across York, we know that security risks need to be addressed, but so do people’s human rights.
We live in a troubled world. Risks present themselves every day around the globe and here at home, and we must do all we can to keep our communities safe. There is no point in saying “if only” at the inquest when we had the chance to rechart the course of history. I understand risk and I want my city to be safe for all who enter. Mitigation must be proportionate and effective. But let us be clear: disabled people are not terrorists, yet they are the ones being excluded.
Imagine a sign saying “No disabled people”. Yet that is what York has sunk to: denying dignity to the 60-plus people who every day depend on their blue badge to access the city. My plea to the Minister is that blue badge holders need his help. In York, the council is clearly out of its depth. Some places have got this right and others horribly wrong. This is a very specialist area of policy, and central Government need to provide the specialism that localities do not have.
Barricades around our ancient city are nothing new. The centre already has the world-renowned wall, which makes for an enjoyable walk for those who can access it. There are 8 million visitors a year and just over 200,000 people living in York, and 34,592 residents identified as a disabled person in the 2021 census and around 7,000 have been issued with a blue badge, granting access and parking to reach shops, services, open spaces and entertainment across our city centre and beyond.
We have a heavy responsibility to ensure safety, but also to ensure that disabled people are not denied their rights. The latter has been poorly understood. A Labour  Government would ensure that every town and city is safe and secure, and reverse the ban in York. I have been talking to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), who says that it does not have to be this way. Access for blue badge holders has been facilitated there, overcoming the very issues that York has railed to grasp. Chester, the first British city to win the coveted European access city award for balancing safety and access, provides for access at barriers, which close only when risk is identified. Essential businesses and blue badge residents are on the list for access, and even visitors can apply in advance. Its infrastructure provides safety and access, and Chester understands the importance of involving and working with disabled people in planning.

Samantha Dixon: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about Chester. I have to ask why on earth City of York Council has not followed Cheshire West and Chester Council’s excellent example in this matter. Our city centre scheme has been worked on since late 2017. At every single step of the way, my council’s fantastic officers have worked assiduously with the access officer, the equalities team and, most importantly, disabled people themselves to accommodate their needs while balancing the imperatives of the wider security environment. The council has the powers, but uses them extremely sparingly. Indeed, they have been activated only three times. This measure should not be used as a barrier to disabled people leading their day-to-day lives.

Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Inclusion is about the co-production of outcomes. Chester is able, but the Liberal Democrat York administration has failed to commit to measures and is therefore barring disabled people from being able to access their city.
Turning to the law, I am grateful to the world-leading Centre for Applied Human Rights at the University of York, which produced an outstanding report, and to the Reverse the Ban campaign to provide access to disabled people. The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, a human rights treaty, binds national and local jurisdictions, stating:
“Disabled people must never be treated less favourably than others, excluded from or denied access to services, education, work or social life on the basis of their disability.”
and must have access
“on an equal basis to non-disabled people”.
Further, it states that
“Disabled people’s full and effective participation and inclusion in society must be supported”.
With the combination of the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, the rights of disabled people cannot be dismissed. Disabled people, under articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act, have a right to participate in essential economic, social, cultural and leisure activities. Any limitations for security must be proportionate and inclusive. The Equality Act 2010 is even more relevant as it places a duty on public authorities to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people to exercise their rights and to
“advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic, and those who do not.”
Case law clarifies that public authorities must have due regard for the impact on elderly and disabled people when imposing parking restrictions. York fails that test.  There were two equality impact assessments. The first, in June 2020, said that there was no infringement on human rights, yet it recognised that blue badge holders would be barred from the city. In November 2020 there was recognition of the breach, but no mitigation and no compelling reason for justification.
Removing the ability to drive and park in the streets will increase the distance that people with reduced mobility have to travel. They will be locked out of their city. Above all, under the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, the Government must ensure that the built environment is usable by disabled people on an equal basis to others. I recognise that that is difficult, but rather than the authorities making mistakes akin to York’s, the Government must intervene and assist.
First, funding is key to making places accessible. Infrastructure is not cheap, and project costs invariably spiral. We need Government funding and backing to support local authorities at risk. Secondly, security risks change, so continuous support must be available. A central unit of expertise that works with local partners with a strong understanding of security and the impact on human rights is essential. York needs an integrated security audit and plan, and the Government should assist it.
Thirdly, disabled people must be involved in the design of any consultation and subsequent mitigation measures. City of York Council ran three consultations, including one focused on disabled people and representative groups. In addition to wider infrastructure enhancements, public transport and information, it recognised the rights of disabled people. York then ignored them. Fourthly, there is a clear need for co-production of hostile vehicle mitigation measures, ensuring that safety and human rights obligations are met. Solving conflicts together produces stronger outcomes.
I believe that York must stop digging in and start listening, like Chester. Here is my proposal. Blue badges are identified to a person, not a vehicle. At barrier entry points, they can be shown to security personnel or a camera. Additional security—a password, identification or a QR code—could act as secondary security. That is a tried and tested method when operating security zones. Visitors will have to pre-register, but that is not arduous. It is simple, safe and secure, and it protects the city and human rights. York’s plans will deny access to disabled people between 10:30 am and 5 pm. Many disabled people find mornings difficult, and by 5 pm the shops and amenities will be closed. It is simply shameful that blue badge holders are locked out. The council executives should hang their heads in disgrace.
A Labour Government would not tolerate that and would reverse the ban. The Minister needs to intervene urgently with his expertise to keep people safe and enable people to be dignified in their city. I want him to work with me, halt the engineering works that commenced yesterday at a cost of £3.5 million to local people, and provide oversight, as York’s safety and access is of national concern. Getting it right in York will set a blueprint for elsewhere. Labour has already forced the administration to appoint an access officer and set up an access forum, but due to the abysmal record of the authority on equalities, I argue that an equality scrutiny committee needs to be established, so that all the authority’s work is examined and non-discriminatory mitigation is put in place.
My sincere thanks go to the 27 organisations representing disabled people, older people and allied and related organisations campaigning to reverse the ban, and to Flick Williams, who is a tour de force when speaking on behalf of disabled people to secure their human rights. The embarrassment is that York became the UK’s first UNESCO human rights city in 2017. This year it holds the prestigious international chair for human rights cities. My well-researched proposal would remedy the council’s shaming of York. I ask the Minister to intervene and to join me not only to immediately reverse the ban but to strengthen security and access, so we can all live safely and with dignity.

Jonathan Lord: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a chance at the ballot box? I believe that York has local elections. Would she encourage the residents of York to make their views on this matter known to the various candidates?

Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and, of course, this is a big issue for our city. It is imperative that people seriously consider where they put their crosses on 4 May, as that provides an opportunity to reverse the ban. If the Lib Dem-Green council will not reverse the ban, clearly the people of York must speak.
I close with the words of Dame Judi Dench:
“York city centre is a rare jewel that should be free for all to enjoy, including those with a disability and for whom accessible parking is essential… I should like to offer my wholehearted support to people in the City of York”.
I ask the Minister to offer his support too.

Lee Rowley: I start by conveying my sincere appreciation to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for calling the debate and for speaking so powerfully on behalf of her constituents, especially those who have been adversely affected by the installation of bollards, the removal of blue badge parking in York city centre and the many other issues she highlighted.
I thank the hon. Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord), for their contributions to the debate. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who is no longer in his place, for his contribution. I know he has similarly strong views to those articulated by the hon. Member for York Central. Both the hon. Members who represent the city of York are committed champions of the residents and businesses that call York home, and I know they share our ambition for that fine city, in the heart of the northern powerhouse, to continue to grow and flourish in the long term.
York attracts over 8 million tourists from home and abroad every year. We know the visitor economy is vital for the city, but it also causes the types of questions, challenges, trade-offs and considerations that the hon. Lady so eloquently espoused in her speech. An appropriate balance clearly needs to be struck, so in my response  I want to provide clarity about the Government’s role and responsibility, while outlining some of the work around accessibility for disabled residents in York, and indeed in all our towns and cities.
First, I will talk about the UK shared prosperity funding, from which some money has been contributed to the work that has been discussed. I will then talk about accessibility and finally about blue badge parking.
As the hon. Lady will know, appreciate and accept, empowering places to identify and build on their own strengths and needs is a core tenet of the levelling-up agenda, which is why the UK shared prosperity fund is giving York £5 million. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that improving infrastructure costs money and takes time. The fund will help neighbourhoods and create more high-skilled, high-wage jobs of the future.
As the hon. Lady outlined, clear concerns have been expressed about the changes that have made to some of the projects, including the perceived heavy handed use of bollards that restrict accessibility for people in wheelchairs. In rolling out the UK shared prosperity fund, we have been clear that we want to give local areas the maximum amount of local discretion. The essence of devolution is affording local areas the freedom to forge their own path, but with rights come responsibilities.
The hon. Lady has expounded the concerns that she and many others have about the course of action that has been outlined so far by City of York Council. The Government have always been unequivocal in saying that our high streets must be open and accessible to everyone. Local authorities have a duty, under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to exercise their functions in securing the
“expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic.”
Although councils are ultimately free to make their own decisions about the streets under their care, they need to take into account the relevant legislation. They are also responsible for ensuring that their actions are within the law. They are accountable to local people for their decisions, and indeed for their performance. There is no specific requirement for local authorities to use bollards; it is for each council to decide the most appropriate way to resolve these challenges.
Blue badge parking is a similar case. I know that the hon. Lady has been a champion of reversing the ban on blue badge parking since it was introduced in the city’s pedestrian zones as part of the measures introduced in 2021. I appreciate that the resident-led campaign has won the support of others, including Dame Judi Dench, as the hon. Lady outlined in her conclusion.
The blue badge scheme is a lifeline for many disabled people. It helps approximately 2.5 million people in England to remain independent, while preventing social isolation. The Department for Transport has published several documents and some non-statutory guidance for councils on how the scheme should operate. One such document, as the hon. Lady outlined, is “Inclusive Mobility: A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure”, which sets out the provision that should be made for parking spaces. It states:
“Creating and maintaining an accessible public realm is crucial for ensuring that disabled people are not excluded from playing a full role in society… Inclusive design requires that the needs of all disabled people are considered from the outset of any transport and pedestrian infrastructure”.
Personally, I would strongly encourage the city of York to think carefully about reconciling the understandable challenges with which it has to grapple, which we all recognise—the hon. Lady was careful to articulate and highlight them in her speech—with an approach that meets the rights of disabled people in the way she outlined. There is always a balance to be struck between protecting the public and not unduly imposing on the rights and freedoms of disabled residents, blue badge holders or the wider public who need to park in the city for essential reasons.

Marsha de Cordova: In my opinion, City of York Council is clearly breaching the law. It does not even seem to be complying with its responsibilities under the public sector equality duty. Is there scope for the Government to intervene to instruct or encourage the council to reverse the ban?

Lee Rowley: I am grateful for that question, which goes back to my point that ultimately central Government have to recognise, if we believe in devolution, that local  councils must have the aegis and the space to make decisions. However, councils must make those decisions in accordance with the law, must have regard to regulation, and must think carefully about the impact and implications of their decisions in the way the hon. Member for York Central outlined. The fact that the subject had to be raised in this place tonight is indicative of the level of concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House about the challenges facing the city of York.
I have to respect the devolution settlement. I have to recognise that, ultimately, it is right that decisions are made locally. Local government does fantastic things across the country on a daily basis, and we should congratulate it and thank it for doing so. Nevertheless, I hope that the city of York is listening tonight, that it has heard the concerns and comments that have been articulated, and that it will consider very carefully how to approach the matter in future.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.